NationStates Jolt Archive

Individual Self-Determination
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Hirota

Description: Believing every individual has the right to decide their own fate.

Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life.

Mandates:

1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die.

2: All individuals may write a living will stating their wish to invoke right to die in case of future terminal illness or severe accident that may render them incapable of making such wishes known at the time. Living wills may be cancelled or retracted, only by the individual named on them, at any time if the person changes their mind.

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

4: Any person who is incapable of making a right to die decision due to their medical condition, but has a living will, must have that will honoured if the conditions in the will match their medical situation. Nations retain the right, and are encouraged to require, that several independent medical assessments by qualified doctors are made of the patient medical state before right to die is carried out.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

6: No medical professionals may be forced to participate in any form of right to die if it goes against their personal or ethical beliefs. No medical professional may be hindered or prevented from participating in any form of right to die if they agree to be involved.

7: Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted.

Approvals: 154 (Laurinians, Kaihola, ElJefe, Shoup A Dupe, Apachah, 5164-954, 1337 Nation Stealers, Ellenburg, The New Inquisitors, Furious Wang, Jovic, Taichinan, Ceorana, Forgottenlands UN, Tskllandia, Firebert, New Hamilton, Rasla, Santa Matilda, Verjnuarmu, Twilight Union, Gringotenango, The Generic Land Mass, Zaibatsu0, Centralis, Fauck, Kaljamaha, Erehwon Forest, Darpatia, Anarcorockers, Nag Ehgoeg, Errinundera, Henrilandia, The Great Bud, Accrammia, Nominee, Lollipalooza, Former Roman Provinces, Proteani, Kunkindo, Child Care Workers, Finklestadt, Rubina, Cloudy Verbage, Roslav, New Bagman, Blessil, Ashkevronia, Fenrir Wolf, Penguinlanden, Horitsukami, Dragoon Empire III, Maineiacs, Zasavje org, Arrianetta, Saurotan, The real DragonFyre, Kungpaomao, Frocks, Lower gage, Blackbird, Alkinodia, Wootelania, Jed Scott, Fryk, Square rootedness, Adolf Barham, OmnusOmega, De Ganja, Al Kassad, The Hall of Two Truths, Distortania, Elengwaith, Rakua, Losdom, The Isle of Duckia, Kenny Boi, New Tachbe, Wolfhawk, Republic of Freedonia, Bankeryd, Phthisis, New Old New New York, Dorienne, The Stics, Eppstonia, Ronrovia, Hasan Land, Centrosium, Blackdom, TheJebus, Smoklahoma, Delinquent Faith, Viamont, Egalitarians, Ultimate WTF, PandorasCasket, Gankthis, Zeirem, Roystovia, William Rives Young, Evansontoria, Tarmsden, People Who Run, North Notts Nutters, Seemannia, MetaOrkney, Jey, Truella, The Talisman, Graphistectopia, Johistan, NewTexas, Oneechan, Neo Tyros, Imperial Spartak, All Things Halo, Baudrillard, D41k57, Orcini, Antkillerkillers, Manussa, Sequoiaists, Regius, Budingerschik, Method77ia, Renzy, Screw you all, Nordur, St Barth, Doktor B, Alkrensia, Beckala, Logis, Penguidonia, Progressive Islands, Davesylvania, Wortegem-Petegem, Rolf haggis, Gisran, Sudalmenia, Tolene, Wolfish, Revolutionistan, Richard2008, Zambagi, Mr God, Communist Batman, Havl, Juggled geese, Forum Cornelii, The monks at arms, The Kurtish Republic, Norderia)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

As mentioned on another topic, I can take no credit for the proposal. I was merely submitting on behalf of another nation, Witchcliff.

Enn gives its support to this fine proposal, and hopes that it will become resolution soon.

Stephanie Fulton
UN Consul for Enn

This is clearly an overstepping of the authority of the United Nations and excludes the right of sovereign members to consider the prevailing opinions of the interest groups within their nation and legislate according on an issue that is an individual consideration first and an issue that must remain in the hands of those nations.

Dr Marcus Armont
Representative to the UN
Acting Ambassador Extraordinaire

...on an issue that is an individual consideration first...Thats exactly the point, it's fundamentally an individual consideration, not a national one, and this proposal seeks to ensure that this remains the case.

Thats exactly the point, it's fundamentally an individual consideration, not a national one, and this proposal seeks to ensure that this remains the case.
The very nature of this issue is that the dominant views of each nation are so radically different it is grossly inappropriate for this body to exercise it's legislative power, on the issue.

Dr Marcus Armont
Representative to the UN
Acting Ambassador Extraordinaire

This proposal is obviously one that most nat sov supporters won't like. There is no need to keep beating that paticular drum. It will be an issue mostly decided between those that feel the human rights are more important, and those that feel nat sov is. What people feel about the UN having the "right" to decide on this issue is dependant on a persons opinion on nat sov, some members support it, and some don't.

Simply put, if you support the rights of governments more than the rights of citizens, then just vote no. If you support the rights of citizens more than the rights of governments then just vote yes. Its your vote and your choice.

Simply put, if you support the rights of governments more than the rights of citizens, then just vote no. If you support the rights of citizens more than the rights of governments then just vote yes. Its your vote and your choice.

It is not as black and white as this statement by any means. The Holy republic of Superfudge is a government of citizens, and this staement is an outright insult to the political process, and the deomcratic theory of our nation. We believe that this bill ensures the rights of the individual no matter where a world citizen may be in the wolrd at any given time.

Aloyisius Savio
Most Worthy Representative of the Republic of Superfudge

It is not as black and white as this statement by any means. The Holy republic of Superfudge is a government of citizens, and this staement is an outright insult to the political process, and the deomcratic theory of our nation. We believe that this bill ensures the rights of the individual no matter where a world citizen may be in the wolrd at any given time.

Aloyisius Savio
Most Worthy Representative of the Republic of Superfudge

The whole aim of this proposal is to ensure the rights of individuals, yes, that is why I wrote it. To protect a right I feel is as important to each and every person that some feel life itself is.

That other post of mine was trying, badly I will admit, to say basically that if you support the nation governments right to choose on this issue and force that choice on all citizens, vote against this proposal, but if you support a citizens right to choose on this issue and the nation government keeping their noses out, yote for it.

Norderia's support is behind this proposal.

There's no reason that people should be forced to suffer through debilitating disease because some government thinks that the quantity of lives is more important than the quality of lives.

Natsov be damned if it is held in higher regard than the quality of life.

The government and people of Ausserland fully and enthusiastically support this measure. We believe that the right to make a reasoned and informed decision about ending one's life is a fundamental human right -- every bit as fundamental and inalienable as any that could be named. We do not believe that any government -- national or international -- should be able to infringe upon this right.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We have a belief that all living people have a right to life. Life is a right, not a responsibility. Therefore, we believe it is a right to end one's own life.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

We have a belief that all living people have a right to life. Life is a right, not a responsibility. Therefore, we believe it is a right to end one's own life.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

Before someone tries to choke the rest of the proposal with those words, I want to make a point.

The primary function of a government should be to improve the quality of life. If that fails, then the secondary function should be to end suffering. People should not be allowed to commit suicide while the powers that be stand in apathy. Instead, the primary function should kick in, and the potential suicide should be given the chance to be convinced to do otherwise and improve the quality of their life. A person with a terminal illness who is suffering and whose life quality cannot be improved should then be put under the purview of the secondary function, which is to end suffering.

The nation of Wyldtree believes the most fundamental right is certainly life and the right to end one's life is simply an extension of that. We will be strongly in favor of this well done resolution. If this isn't a matter for the individual than I don't know what is.

NatSover in favor :p

The nation of Wyldtree believes the most fundamental right is certainly life and the right to end one's life is simply an extension of that. We will be strongly in favor of this well done resolution. If this isn't a matter for the individual than I don't know what is.

NatSover in favor :p

Ditto. :)

Before someone tries to choke the rest of the proposal with those words, I want to make a point.

The primary function of a government should be to improve the quality of life. If that fails, then the secondary function should be to end suffering. People should not be allowed to commit suicide while the powers that be stand in apathy. Instead, the primary function should kick in, and the potential suicide should be given the chance to be convinced to do otherwise and improve the quality of their life. A person with a terminal illness who is suffering and whose life quality cannot be improved should then be put under the purview of the secondary function, which is to end suffering.
I think this proposal only applies when there is a terminal illness anyway.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

I think this proposal only applies when there is a terminal illness anyway.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

Yeah. I just saw "The right to end one's own life" and thought Oooooh, someone's gonna jump on that and spin it to death so I felt like making that speech.

It was a nice speech, wasn't it? Made me feel wise. 'N shit.

Edit: Oooh, hey, look! I'm "sometimes deadly" now! I feel so much more awesome now that I'm not a "member."

In an act that is of little surprise to most members, the Forgotten Territories gives its full backing to this proposal.

The primary function of a government should be to improve the quality of life. If that fails, then the secondary function should be to end suffering.Amusingly enough, I believe that's the line of thought that the Eugenics Movement used.

Not implying anything, of course.

Jus' saying.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Amusingly enough, I believe that's the line of thought that the Eugenics Movement used.

Not implying anything, of course.

Jus' saying.

Is that right? Huh! Well... That's a kick in the nads.

They used it wrong, like the Nazis with Nietzsche's Will to Power.







Bastards....

The Federation of Methusela disagrees with the premise of any resolution that would address this issue because it is steps on and limits that rights of the leaders of the nation of Methusela to rule.

The Federation of Methusela disagrees with the premise of any resolution that would address this issue because it is steps on and limits that rights of the leaders of the nation of Methusela to rule.

Sorry to hear that your people's lack of rights is such a central tenet of your government.

Sorry to hear that your people's lack of rights is such a central tenet of your government.Erm, I really don't think that baseless slander against this bill's opponents is going to help your case here. :rolleyes:

Erm, I really don't think that baseless slander against this bill's opponents is going to help your case here. :rolleyes:

Their language suggested that such a bill would severely impair their government's ability to rule their people. The slander isn't so baseless.

You're right though, it won't help.

I do find it rather remarkable that exaggerated retorts are being shunned by you though.

The citizens of the nation of Methusela would rather that their goverment make policies and law concerning this issue rather than the United Nation is all my point.

IC: As my representative has already made clear, Enn stands fully in support of this proposal. It is important that people retain their right to their own body, which we of Enn consider euthanasia to be an extension thereof.

Lady Yssandra Faren,
Triumvir of Enn

OOC: Methusela objects to people dying when they could live just a tad longer? Why am I not surprised? :)

Their language suggested that such a bill would severely impair their government's ability to rule their people.Which, as you know, means nothing.

You're right though, it won't help.Then why don't you just leave it there?

The people of Airatum have concerns with this proposal.

We note that the legislation seems to give patients immediate right to suicide upon diagnosis of a terminal illness. There is no provision for a waiting period in which the initial emotional reaction to the diagnosis may loose some intensity. This gives patients the option of suicide immediately after the shock of a terminal diagnosis, in the depth of despair, when the passage of time may cause a reconsideration of suicide.

In a similar manner, a person may make a decision for suicide at the high point of pain, which might have been reconsidered when the pain is treated or fades to a low point.

While clause 4 addresses patients who are unable to make suicide decisions for themselves due to 'medical conditions', this legislation doesn't seem to address patients who are unable to make such decisions due to psychological conditions.

In short, this legislation does not take into account that a person may choose to commit suicide, an act that affords no chance of reconsideration, which they would not in their normal state of mind.

We would appreciate any clarification if we have misunderstood the proposal.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum also wish to point out that the title of this legislation seems to be an attempt to mislead.

While we understand that the author of any legislation would try to put a favorable light on their proposal by giving it a pleasing title (choosing to use the word Euthanasia instead of Suicide, for example), we find the title "Individual Self-Determination" to drastically misrepresent the actual contents of this proposal.

We regret, but note, that many people have observed a tendency for representatives to vote based on the title of legislation without actually reading it. While we agree that this is unfortunate and that it is the duty of representatives to actually read the legislation they are voting on, we nevertheless find reprehensible any attempt to win votes with misleading titles.

While granting the 'right' to commit suicide does fall under self-determination, it is only one of a wide variety of topics that might fall under this title.

We fear that many who would oppose this legislation will support it, because, after all, how many people are against the individual's right to self-determination?

We request that even those that would support this legislation would consider voting against it in order to maintain a standard of truth in titling. If we allow this sort of thing to become the standard, it may be the very legislation you dread most that will pass under an innocuous title. Take a stand that titles should accurately reflect the legislation.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Already happened. What constitutes an inappropriate, misleading, or questionable title is a matter of opinion. I am sure there are many representatives that would shout me down when I say that I felt the same facts applied to Abortion Legality Convention. Yes, there are certainly many arguments for using that title, but I felt that it misrepresented what the proposal was doing and might confuse many members into thinking they were legalizing abortion when, really, a proposal trying to stop the UN from legalizing it was being passed.

Does that mean the title was unfair. Absolutely not. It was my opinion that the title was misleading and I am sure that if you look at every single resolution ever passed, you will find SOME member that will take objection to the exact wording of the title as being incorrect - some of the claims will make no sense and might be merely due to bad interpretation or failure to understand English or seeing a "not" when there clearly wasn't one. Others, a bit more sense. Why a proposal should be campaigned against because of its title absolutely baffles me.

Is everything about the ALC for you? Because this is maybe the fiftieth time you've brought it up in a non-related topic.

Is everything about the ALC for you? Because this is maybe the fiftieth time you've brought it up in a non-related topic.

Let's see.....I bring up PoSP a lot and used to bring up UNSA fairly regularly. Starting to add UNSA1 to that list. There might be a handful of others. These are resolutions where I was heavily involved in the debate and there were a lot of, in my mind, important effects that stuck with me. They stick out. Just because you walk away from every resolution you've ever battled over and go "ok, now what?" without ever trying to use that experience as something you remember doesn't mean everyone is like that.

I think the interesting thing is the number of times you've fired back turning a single side reference into a hijack.

Back to topic.

While clause 4 addresses patients who are unable to make suicide decisions for themselves due to 'medical conditions', this legislation doesn't seem to address patients who are unable to make such decisions due to psychological conditions.
Psychology is a branch of medicine. If a person was psychologically insane, Ceorana would interpret that as a medical reason that they couldn't make a decision.

Is everything about the ALC for you? Because this is maybe the fiftieth time you've brought it up in a non-related topic.
Mr Macdougal is upset that he was aborted as a child.:D

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Irrelevant deleted stuff about other legislation that may or may not have had misleading titles.

Why a proposal should be campaigned against because of its title absolutely baffles me.

Thank you for your response.

We merely wish to challenge this body to refuse legislation with vague or misleading titles. Whether or not legislation with such titles has been passed before now is irrelevant.

The only way to discourage this practice is not to support legislation with misleading titles, even if we agree with said legislation. If the representative from Forgottenlands has an idea of how to discourage misleading titles in some other way, we would be glad to hear it.

Such deceitfulness should be acted against.

If no one here agrees that the title of this legislation is misleading, and even appears to be an attempt to get votes that wouldn't otherwise be cast for the legislation, then they are always free to support the legislation. We are asking anyone who says to themselves, "Yeah, I can see how that title is very misleading," to consider this as a reason for rejecting this proposal, even though they may agree with it.

Sincerely,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Psychology is a branch of medicine. If a person was psychologically insane, Ceorana would interpret that as a medical reason that they couldn't make a decision.

We thank the representative from Ceorana for their inclusive use of the term medical.

We are not confident that it will always be intepreted this way in the future, however, and still remain concerned about our original points.

Yoahs Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Central-Dogma supports this resolution and wishes to see it implemented.


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

Thank you for your response.

We merely wish to challenge this body to refuse legislation with vague or misleading titles. Whether or not legislation with such titles has been passed before now is irrelevant.

The only way to discourage this practice is not to support legislation with misleading titles, even if we agree with said legislation. If the representative from Forgottenlands has an idea of how to discourage misleading titles in some other way, we would be glad to hear it.

Such deceitfulness should be acted against.

If no one here agrees that the title of this legislation is misleading, and even appears to be an attempt to get votes that wouldn't otherwise be cast for the legislation, then they are always free to support the legislation. We are asking anyone who says to themselves, "Yeah, I can see how that title is very misleading," to consider this as a reason for rejecting this proposal, even though they may agree with it.

Sincerely,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

In the process of making your point, you missed mine.

You discuss the concern for a future trend of misleading titles. My point was that these misleading titles are misleading in your eyes. Yes, you acknowledged that. However, if there are different opinions of what is and isn't misleading, and these opinions are based upon different beliefs about the issue at hand, how can we discourage an issue that is based upon individual perception when (by definition) everyone has a different perception about the matter?

Thank you for your response.

We merely wish to challenge this body to refuse legislation with vague or misleading titles. Whether or not legislation with such titles has been passed before now is irrelevant.

The only way to discourage this practice is not to support legislation with misleading titles, even if we agree with said legislation. If the representative from Forgottenlands has an idea of how to discourage misleading titles in some other way, we would be glad to hear it.

Such deceitfulness should be acted against.

If no one here agrees that the title of this legislation is misleading, and even appears to be an attempt to get votes that wouldn't otherwise be cast for the legislation, then they are always free to support the legislation. We are asking anyone who says to themselves, "Yeah, I can see how that title is very misleading," to consider this as a reason for rejecting this proposal, even though they may agree with it.

Sincerely,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We share the concern of the honorable representative of Airatum about misleading titles on proposals. It's a shoddy practice and should be condemned. One of our respected moderators has stated (in another thread, we believe) that proposals with misleading or inappropriate titles would be deleted based on the Format rule. We applaud the intent, but question the validity, since nowhere in the Format rule does it even mention titles. The requirement to have a title with reasonable relevance to the content should be clearly stated in the rules.

In the instant case, we respectfully disagree with our honorable colleague that the title of this proposal is, in fact, misleading. The decision to end one's life is, to us, a clear case of self-determination. The title could certainly have been more specifically on point, but we don't view it as inappropriate. We will vote FOR the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

In the process of making your point, you missed mine.

You discuss the concern for a future trend of misleading titles. My point was that these misleading titles are misleading in your eyes. Yes, you acknowledged that. However, if there are different opinions of what is and isn't misleading, and these opinions are based upon different beliefs about the issue at hand, how can we discourage an issue that is based upon individual perception when (by definition) everyone has a different perception about the matter?

Not at all. We understood your point, and attempted to point out that if it isn't misleading in many peoples eyes, they simply won't vote based on that. If something was misleading and many people realized it, they could vote based on that.

We don't agree with you that everyone by definition has a different perception about the matter.

If a proposal that banned abortion was titled "Resolution to Protect Spotted Owls", we expect that a full 80% or so of this body would be able to discern that the title was misleading. In which case, and appeal could be made, even to those who support banning abortion, to strike down the legislation based on that fact alone.

We believe this is the case here. It isn't as exaggerated as the example above. Titling this legislation "Individual Self-Determination" is, however, equivalent to titling an pro-abortion act "Protect Children from Poverty" or an anti-abortion act "Bay Safety Initiative".

If enough people agree that a title is misleading, and publicly state this as their reason for voting against legislation, it would discourage such practices.

The representative from Forgottenlands may disagree that this is a case of a misleading title. That is up to the representative.

We are, however, appealing to those who can agree that this title is misleading, and asking them not to support this legislation even if they agree with its contents.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

In the instant case, we respectfully disagree with our honorable colleague that the title of this proposal is, in fact, misleading. The decision to end one's life is, to us, a clear case of self-determination. The title could certainly have been more specifically on point, but we don't view it as inappropriate. We will vote FOR the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We thank the representative of Ausserland for his measured and respectful reply, and for hearing our case. His response, even though counter to our position, is appreciated.

Gratefully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Lets put this title thing down shall we. It was chosen because it perfectly discribed what I want this proposal to achieve, give the individual the right to self determination on this issue. Is it broad?, yes it is, and I won't apologise for that because it fits what I want so well.

This proposal is not about letting people just go out and kill themselves if they get the urge, it is firmly about giving the terminally ill the right of choice to decide to fight to the end or slip away quietly at the time of their choosing, hence self determination.

If you disagree with the title, fine, that's your right, but it's not illegal (that challenge has been tried) and does cover what the proposal does. If the fluffies only vote on it because of the title and don't read any further, thats hardly my fault or problem.

You may be interested to know my first choice for title was "Personal Soverignty Act", but I was talked out of using that one :p.

The people of Airatum have concerns with this proposal.

We note that the legislation seems to give patients immediate right to suicide upon diagnosis of a terminal illness. There is no provision for a waiting period in which the initial emotional reaction to the diagnosis may loose some intensity. This gives patients the option of suicide immediately after the shock of a terminal diagnosis, in the depth of despair, when the passage of time may cause a reconsideration of suicide.

In a similar manner, a person may make a decision for suicide at the high point of pain, which might have been reconsidered when the pain is treated or fades to a low point.

6: No medical professionals may be forced to participate in any form of right to die if it goes against their personal or ethical beliefs. No medical professional may be hindered or prevented from participating in any form of right to die if they agree to be involved.

While the patient can ask for right to die at any time, the doctor also has the right to refuse to do it for ethical beliefs, and in the first scenario you mentioned, I trust doctors to have ethical beliefs against diagnosis instadeath. If the patient goes home and kills him/herself unassisted, then that is straight out suicide, not right to die. The pain bit is certainly one of the things that may make someone decide to invoke right to die, and I wouldn't blame them.

You seem to have missed that while the proposal gives the patient the choice of invoking right to die, it doesn't state anywhere that the right has to be carried out immediatly when asked. Doctors are perfectly entitled to use ethical reasons to require a "cooling off" period if they wish to, and I trust pretty much all of them to do just that.

While clause 4 addresses patients who are unable to make suicide decisions for themselves due to 'medical conditions', this legislation doesn't seem to address patients who are unable to make such decisions due to psychological conditions.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

They are included.

In short, this legislation does not take into account that a person may choose to commit suicide, an act that affords no chance of reconsideration, which they would not in their normal state of mind.

This proposal isn't about suicide, it is about the right to die, assisted if necessary, for the terminally ill. Depressed teenagers slashing their wrists because their boy/girlfriend dumped them aren't covered in this, however very ill teenagers dying of cancer are. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

I hope I'm not the first to say, what the fuck, we just dealt with this issue. Why is it so hard for nations to just leave this issue alone. The there is no reason for there to be a law such as this one. How ever a government feels on this issue, thats their right. Just leave it alone. Better yet write a resolution that gives each nation a choice, rather than infringe upon their rights as a nation.

I hope I'm not the first to say, what the fuck, we just dealt with this issue. Why is it so hard for nations to just leave this issue alone. The there is no reason for there to be a law such as this one. How ever a government feels on this issue, thats their right. Just leave it alone. Better yet write a resolution that gives each nation a choice, rather than infringe upon their rights as a nation.

You are, but that's partly because everyone knew it was coming. You aren't the first to say that it should be left to nations, but that is far from surprising in today's UN.

We decided we wanted to have a resolution that puts it as the government's responsibility. If you want a resolution that gives the choice to nations, write your own resolution. We aren't writing it because we don't believe in it. There are others here who do, but Witchcliff, Hirota, Ausserland and myself (amongst many others) don't believe in it, so we aren't buying into it. Ms Jiffjeff of Gruenberg you might be able to persuade into joining you.

I hope I'm not the first to say, what the fuck, we just dealt with this issue. Why is it so hard for nations to just leave this issue alone. The there is no reason for there to be a law such as this one. How ever a government feels on this issue, thats their right. Just leave it alone. Better yet write a resolution that gives each nation a choice, rather than infringe upon their rights as a nation.

Such a resolution would be illegal.

And those who support this proposal are of the opinion that human rights are not to be left up to individual governments, that there is plenty of reason why the UN should mandate the legality of self-determination. If you feel that it is a national right to prolong the suffering of an individual, then bring forth a premise that explains why. This issue is worthy of international legislation.

Such a resolution would be illegal.

And those who support this proposal are of the opinion that human rights are not to be left up to individual governments, that there is plenty of reason why the UN should mandate the legality of self-determination. If you feel that it is a national right to prolong the suffering of an individual, then bring forth a premise that explains why. This issue is worthy of international legislation.


Come now, No one has said that it is a national right to prolong the suffering of an individual. Nice twisting of words. It is a nation's populations right to decide for themself with their duly elected government on this issue and not the United Nations.

Come now, No one has said that it is a national right to prolong the suffering of an individual. Nice twisting of words. It is a nation's populations right to decide for themself with their duly elected government on this issue and not the United Nations.

The representative of Methusela might wish to consider that not all national governments in the world of NationStates are "duly elected." There are a wide variety of government types represented in the NSUN, including hereditary monarchies (like our own) and dictatorships.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You are very much right in that regard, but in all the comments mentioned so far, I have not seen anyone say, "We disagree with this because we WANT to prolong the life of a person suffering." If they have, I have missed it, and I apologize for not seeing that. The only person that keeps saying it is the delegate from Norderia, in an attempt to say that anyone who would disagree with this proposal is basing their disagreement solely on that premise. Which is false in the case of the Nation of Methusela.

You aren't the first to say that it should be left to nations, but that is far from surprising in today's UN.
:confused: Honest question, what are you infering and is it even necessary?
We decided we wanted to have a resolution that puts it as the government's responsibility.
:confused: Your resolution doesn't put the decission in the responsibility of the government, but that of the UN. To me that is overstepping its boundaries as a governing body; I feel this word, by deffinition, fits better as the NSUN is more of a governing body than a government. Do you honestly believe that NSUN is one government that rules over a large area as one unit? Or is it a committee that makes decissions that are meant to better the group as a whole? If you choose the first option your on the right track. But option two would make your resolution seem a little to controlling by taking away an individual right to govern one's own nation in matters that aren't so cut and dry.
Such a resolution would be illegal.
:confused: Why? Why is it illegal to say each nation can chose either way? Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be stardards for those who chose either way, but it should be a choice. The choice should have rule such as the list in this resolution to maintain a standard either way.

:confused: Honest question, what are you infering and is it even necessary?
I don't think FL was inferring anything there, just commenting on the large number of National Sovereigntists in the UN nowadays. In the past, it was less apparant.

:confused: Your resolution doesn't put the decission in the responsibility of the government, but that of the UN. To me that is overstepping its boundaries as a governing body; I feel this word, by deffinition, fits better as the NSUN is more of a governing body than a government. Do you honestly believe that NSUN is one government that rules over a large area as one unit? Or is it a committee that makes decissions that are meant to better the group as a whole? If you choose the first option your on the right track. But option two would make your resolution seem a little to controlling by taking away an individual right to govern one's own nation in matters that aren't so cut and dry.
1. It isn't FL's proposal. He supports it, that's why he's defending it. It's actually Witchcliff's, submitted by Hirota.
2. There has long been argument as to the bounds of the UN's authority. National Sovereigntists believe that UN should only pass resolutions on matters of specifically international importance. International Federalists, as I understand them, regard the UN as a quasi-world government with the power to pass resolutions on whatever it pleases.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
3. (OOC) I disagree with your assertion that there is any such thing as an 'individual right to govern one's own nation' - I refer group leadership. But that's a personal belief, and may just be semantics in this case.

:confused: Why? Why is it illegal to say each nation can chose either way? Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be stardards for those who chose either way, but it should be a choice. The choice should have rule such as the list in this resolution to maintain a standard either way.
Under the current rules for proposals, it is illegal to submit a proposal that simply says the UN will not decide either way. There has to be some meat to a proposal to make it legal.

We note that the legislation seems to give patients immediate right to suicide upon diagnosis of a terminal illness. There is no provision for a waiting period in which the initial emotional reaction to the diagnosis may loose some intensity. This gives patients the option of suicide immediately after the shock of a terminal diagnosis, in the depth of despair, when the passage of time may cause a reconsideration of suicide.The proposal also includes clauses that allow the individual to change their minds in the event they so select to do so. Also I don't see this as doctor says I have cancer and all that is left to me is euthanasia.. as that is not the same a suicide... they are two separtate functions..

Also it is understood that a desire to end ones life may take place at first but most folks will not act on that right away.. If they have the right social groups around them like family and friends then these will come in to help them make the right choice... not end it in what you call suicide..

As if a person wants to end their life at any point they can do it with ease.... this does nothing to stop folks from talking to those who might be needing this and working to find a better solution if one is possible... It's just that at some point there may not be a better solution and the suffering is greater than the possbile solution.

:confused: Honest question, what are you infering and is it even necessary?

Just that I expected the comment. Nothing insulting inferred, I assure.

:confused: Your resolution doesn't put the decission in the responsibility of the government, but that of the UN. To me that is overstepping its boundaries as a governing body; I feel this word, by deffinition, fits better as the NSUN is more of a governing body than a government. Do you honestly believe that NSUN is one government that rules over a large area as one unit? Or is it a committee that makes decissions that are meant to better the group as a whole? If you choose the first option your on the right track. But option two would make your resolution seem a little to controlling by taking away an individual right to govern one's own nation in matters that aren't so cut and dry.

Brainfart. We wanted a resolution that puts it OUTSIDE the hands of the government.

:confused: Why? Why is it illegal to say each nation can chose either way? Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be stardards for those who chose either way, but it should be a choice. The choice should have rule such as the list in this resolution to maintain a standard either way.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488041

Read

Such a resolution would be illegal.No, it wouldn't.

And those who support this proposal are of the opinion that human rights are not to be left up to individual governments, that there is plenty of reason why the UN should mandate the legality of self-determination. If you feel that it is a national right to prolong the suffering of an individual, then bring forth a premise that explains why. This issue is worthy of international legislation.That's a bit arrogant, considering you guys are the ones proposing international intervention here. The burden of proof should be on you. So, how is this an international issue?

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing nations of wanting "to prolong the suffering of an individual" simply because they don't think this issue is international in scope. It only cheapens the debate.

The proposal also includes clauses that allow the individual to change their minds in the event they so select to do so. Also I don't see this as doctor says I have cancer and all that is left to me is euthanasia.. as that is not the same a suicide... they are two separtate functions..

Also it is understood that a desire to end ones life may take place at first but most folks will not act on that right away.. If they have the right social groups around them like family and friends then these will come in to help them make the right choice... not end it in what you call suicide..

As if a person wants to end their life at any point they can do it with ease.... this does nothing to stop folks from talking to those who might be needing this and working to find a better solution if one is possible... It's just that at some point there may not be a better solution and the suffering is greater than the possbile solution.

We thank the representative from Zeldon for this response.

Provision for a patient to change their mind and decide against suicide is good, but a provision that there be at least a moderate waiting period is in order. We take issue with the fact that this proposal seems to grant an immediate right to suicide upon diagnosis, rather than calling for a reasonable period of time to make sure it is what the patient wants.

Euthanasia is a form of suicide when the patient gives consent. It is sometimes even referred to as physician-assisted suicide. We continue to refer to euthanasia as suicide in much the same way this bill refers to it as 'self determination'.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

I don't think FL was inferring anything there, just commenting on the large number of National Sovereigntists in the UN nowadays. In the past, it was less apparant.
That would be what was infering beacuse he didn't say it directly.

1. It isn't FL's proposal. He supports it, that's why he's defending it. It's actually Witchcliff's, submitted by Hirota.
2. There has long been argument as to the bounds of the UN's authority. National Sovereigntists believe that UN should only pass resolutions on matters of specifically international importance. International Federalists, as I understand them, regard the UN as a quasi-world government with the power to pass resolutions on whatever it pleases.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
3. (OOC) I disagree with your assertion that there is any such thing as an 'individual right to govern one's own nation' - I refer group leadership. But that's a personal belief, and may just be semantics in this case.
Thank you, now I learned a little bit more.

Under the current rules for proposals, it is illegal to submit a proposal that simply says the UN will not decide either way. There has to be some meat to a proposal to make it legal.
So if there was, for example, a list of rules for either option would it be legal?

physician-assisted suicide.The key are the words in front of the suicide over just plan suicide.. As a physician will have a procedure they get to this by.. As to a physician a dead patient pays none of his bills unless he's not in the practice of healing folks or trying to do that.

If there is no support system in place for a patient found to have some disease that might not be cured then they themselves as just a prone to jump of a building to kill themselves as anything else. Physician assistance means just that and again a physician makes more money off the living than they do off the dead. Sometimes this is why we need to have something to say it's time to let me go.. as doctors will abuse the system either way you let them do it. They will order medical procedures that do nothing to help the patient but give a kickback to them for ordering it. They will put them on medications that do nothing for the patient but they get a cut of what they push on patients. Then you have the other side where a patient simply has no funds to pay for things so a doctor ends treatment because can't squeeze more from them.

OOC:Believe me this can work either way as have seen it myself where a doctor as well as hospital abused the system to profit from it. Instead of letting a person die they ordered unneeded medical procedures some after the patient was legaly dead.. AS they debated for weeks about who would sign the Death Certificate which was past the required three day perior for this state for one to be signed. Then bill family or insurance for this, took two years but hospital and doctor have paid but not enough. Unless people have to do something about this they don't do a thing and then the day comes and not only do they suffer but others do close to them.

IC:Thus fully support this proposal as it is needed.. otherwise we open the door to abuse of a patient at a time they can't help themselves.

Description: Believing every individual has the right to decide their own fate Indeed, I'd rather not be run over by a car, or get cancer, or any sort of painful or premature death, but then most people can't choose their fate.

Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life.

Mandates:

1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die.

2: All individuals may write a living will stating their wish to invoke right to die in case of future terminal illness or severe accident that may render them incapable of making such wishes known at the time. Living wills may be cancelled or retracted, only by the individual named on them, at any time if the person changes their mind.

Woah woah, big jump from 'do not try your hardest to keep me alive, give me surgery or drugs' to 'inject me with something that kills me'.
3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care. People can terminate their life because they 'might be a nuisance?' I think most families would be more than happy to have a live dependent that a dead relative.

4: Any person who is incapable of making a right to die decision due to their medical condition, but has a living will, must have that will honoured if the conditions in the will match their medical situation. Nations retain the right, and are encouraged to require, that several independent medical assessments by qualified doctors are made of the patient medical state before right to die is carried out.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only. By which time the patient may be dead already. Nor is there any mention of life-support machines.

6: <snip>
7: Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted. Bullet to the heart? Injections aren't any less painful. Pills are slow. etc.

So euthanasania by any other name. I'd rather a resolution that was explicit in what it was doing and defined both passive and active euthansia, mandating the former and discretionary on the latter. Randomea remains against.

We thank the representative from Zeldon for this response.

Provision for a patient to change their mind and decide against suicide is good, but a provision that there be at least a moderate waiting period is in order. We take issue with the fact that this proposal seems to grant an immediate right to suicide upon diagnosis, rather than calling for a reasonable period of time to make sure it is what the patient wants.

Euthanasia is a form of suicide when the patient gives consent. It is sometimes even referred to as physician-assisted suicide. We continue to refer to euthanasia as suicide in much the same way this bill refers to it as 'self determination'.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Actually the bill refers to it as right to die, self-determination is having the choice, and that is really what this proposal is about. Giving the individual the right to choose.

You seem fixated that people will find out they have a disease and decide to pop themselves off straight away on a whim. If they aren't really sure and ready for death, then they won't go through with it. Don't forget the basic human drive for survival and how strong the instinct to fight death really is.

I'm an ex-nurse in RL and have seen both sides. Very ill people fighting like the devil to live as long as they could, and very ill people who just wanted to die and constantly asked us to help them. Of course we had to say no because right to die is illegal in Australia. Those experiences are one of the reasons I have such strong views on this issue.

The Republic of Compadria is very strongly in favour of this proposal, as we feel it stands as a comprehensive and effective guarantee of the rights of all citizens, of any nation, to decide their fate and overall well-being, should such things be within their mandate and control. The question here is not the morality of whether we are encouraging premature death or pressurising sufferers into letting themselves go. It is to give them an option, a choice, to safeguard their essential rights by removing them from the perogative of their government and giving it to the individual.

It is all very well to say, "the U.N. is mandating this and it overrides our laws", but think before making that argument what is entailed here. No one is forcing euthanasia upon your citizens, we are giving them an option. If they choose not to exercise it, so be it. If they choose too, then why prolong any pain and anguish by depriving them of a dignified death. If you believe in the sovereignty of the individual, his/her/undefined's right to seek release from their condition by their own decision, then support this resolution. If you favour removing this from them, oppose.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

While I am for the rights of the individual to a dignified death, I'm not sure that this issue is worthy of international legislation. I believe it should be the majority decision of the peoples of the nation to decide whether or not to allow a person that right.

Moreover I do have an issue with clause 5 of the proposal. I do not believe that under any circumstances a person should be allowed to decide to invoke another's right to die in the form of euthenasia, as the proposal does allow for.

If the wording of this part of the proposal was changed I would give support to it, even though I am still unsure if this is something the UN should be deciding upon. But as it stands now, I cannot support it.

No, it wouldn't.
Yes it would, categorical uh-oh.

That's a bit arrogant, considering you guys are the ones proposing international intervention here. The burden of proof should be on you. So, how is this an international issue?
This is true, the burden of proof is on us. Much of that proof is written into the proposal itself. Why is it an internation issue? Because it involves human rights, and something the UN should have a hand in is seeing to the advancement of human rights.

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing nations of wanting "to prolong the suffering of an individual" simply because they don't think this issue is international in scope. It only cheapens the debate.
I can see why that would sound abrasive, and I apologize for wording it so sharply. However, I haven't heard any arguments outside of "every nation should choose this for themselves" and in the absence of premises, I'm left to draw the most likely conclusion. I may have exaggerated it a bit, but in doing so, I hoped to draw out a reasonable argument as to why anyone would not permit self-determination for people who are endlessly suffering.

You are very much right in that regard, but in all the comments mentioned so far, I have not seen anyone say, "We disagree with this because we WANT to prolong the life of a person suffering." If they have, I have missed it, and I apologize for not seeing that. The only person that keeps saying it is the delegate from Norderia, in an attempt to say that anyone who would disagree with this proposal is basing their disagreement solely on that premise. Which is false in the case of the Nation of Methusela.

A hasty exaggeration influenced by a lack of reasons beyond "it's for each individual nation to decide." I apologize.

Now, correct me. What is the reason that a nation would want to refuse individual self-determination? Provide me with an argument that doesn't sit on NatSov.

Now, correct me. What is the reason that a nation would want to refuse individual self-determination? Provide me with an argument that doesn't sit on NatSov.

What about governments whose theological beliefs say that suicide is a sin, that would be punished in the afterlife, so that by making it easier for people to end their suffering in this world this proposal would condemn them to worse suffering in the next one?

That still puts the interests of the government ahead of the individual on a deeply personal matter. It is surely up to each person to decide how to exercise their faith, or lack of faith. Government instituted religions are in my opinion horrible things that should not exist in a civilised society.

Lady Yssandra Faren,
Triumvir of Enn

OOC: Still NatSov in my book.

A hasty exaggeration influenced by a lack of reasons beyond "it's for each individual nation to decide." I apologize.

Now, correct me. What is the reason that a nation would want to refuse individual self-determination? Provide me with an argument that doesn't sit on NatSov.

A nation could have a need for the folks as laborers, or breeders if the population was getting to low.

A nation could have a need for the folks as laborers, or breeders if the population was getting to low.I doubt someone is enough pain to consider euthanasia as an option will have the capacity to perform such errr....physical work.

I doubt someone is enough pain to consider euthanasia as an option will have the capacity to perform such errr....physical work.

I've been in enough pain (both physical and psychological) to consider death as an option. Both times I was quite capable of either hard physical labor or sexual activity, and demonstrated it. It requires a good deal of focus to block out the pain enough to function, but it can be done.

I'll probably vote in favour but this is a bit of a borderline case - I'm not persuaded that the case for euthanasia is strong enough for international action.

I've been in enough pain (both physical and psychological) to consider death as an option. Both times I was quite capable of either hard physical labor or sexual activity, and demonstrated it. It requires a good deal of focus to block out the pain enough to function, but it can be done.Lucky you. However, not everyone in a similar situation would have such fortitude.

Secondly, I'm assuming you are were not terminally or chronically ill (or rather, still are) - which is great, as you'd have been exempt in such a resolution, so member states could still have forced you to lug bricks around or do "the deed."

I don't want to pry about your personal life, but it sounds like you are blurring the lines between suicide and euthanasia. You say you've been unfortunate enough to be desperate enough to consider death as an option, but it implies past tense rather than present, which suggests to me you got better. The people this proposal would apply to do not have such a luxury.

What about governments whose theological beliefs say that suicide is a sin, that would be punished in the afterlife, so that by making it easier for people to end their suffering in this world this proposal would condemn them to worse suffering in the next one?

"I believe it's the government's job to make sure we don't burn up here on Earth and that's it."
-Jon Stewart

---------------

Theocracies be damned (shush, Jiffjeff). Their arrogance and presumptousness that just because their government follow a religion means that all of their citizens are following it or even want to follow it is one of the least worthy arguments for opposing a resolution where the entire person believes in individual rights. If they want to sit by every hospital bed as the person's considering euthanasia going "you'll burn forever for you sins", fine. However, they should not be permitted to impose their narrow viewpoint on their populace just because their government decides it wants to rule by an ancient textbook.

------------------

I doubt someone is enough pain to consider euthanasia as an option will have the capacity to perform such errr....physical work.

They could still work cash, but anyways

------------------

I've been in enough pain (both physical and psychological) to consider death as an option. Both times I was quite capable of either hard physical labor or sexual activity, and demonstrated it. It requires a good deal of focus to block out the pain enough to function, but it can be done.

"I can do it so everyone can"

When you've experience later stages of cancer and know just how much pain you're in at that point, come back and tell me whether the situations actually compare. Until then, you don't have a fucking clue whether your pain was truly a debilitating pain or not. I'm sure someone sitting in a torture room is suffering enough to consider death, but yet, somehow, they get out of it feeling just fine. The same can't be said about cancer. How long did you suffer this pain? A few days? A week? How about several YEARS.

I honestly can't believe you said that.

When you've experience later stages of cancer and know just how much pain you're in at that point, come back and tell me whether the situations actually compare.Can we leave the hyperbole behind?

I can't speak for cancer, but I can tell you that it fucking hurts like hell when you wake up from heart surgery. Even with enough morphine to cause hallucinations.

IC:Thus fully support this proposal as it is needed.. otherwise we open the door to abuse of a patient at a time they can't help themselves.

We would point out that nations may still legislate in order to prevent the abuses that were detailed by the representative from Vilevilla. Rejecting this proposal does not mean opening the door to such abuses, as we have laws within Airatum to protect against such things.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Actually the bill refers to it as right to die, self-determination is having the choice, and that is really what this proposal is about. Giving the individual the right to choose.

We understand that the language of the legislation has been chosen to cast such legislation in the best possible light. That does not change the fact that active euthanasia, which this proposal allows, is a form of suicide.


You seem fixated that people will find out they have a disease and decide to pop themselves off straight away on a whim. If they aren't really sure and ready for death, then they won't go through with it. Don't forget the basic human drive for survival and how strong the instinct to fight death really is.


Our apologies if we seem fixated. We are merely trying to bring out the points that are most likely to resonate with people who may be in favor of suicide. There are many problems with legalizing suicide.

Perhaps specificity is needed to get across our point. We are concerned that this resolution allows those with a long term, terminal illness to opt for active euthanasia. For example, someone diagnosed with HIV. They may have several years left with proper care, many with relatively low amounts of discomfort or pain, before it developes into full-blown AIDS. We are concerned that someone receiving such a diagnosis may, in their despair, choose suicide, and that this legislation permits it.

The basic human drive for survival is strong, but so is the darkness of depression and defeat.

For the record, we are in support of passive euthanasia at the end of one's life. We honor DNR orders in our country, and ignoring such orders carries harsh penalties for medical personnel.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

If there is no support system in place for a patient found to have some disease that might not be cured...

The people of Airatum maintain a state of the art hospice care system, to care for and comfort the dying.

We don't understand your references to support systems for terminal patients, as this legislation does nothing to provide one.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We understand that the language of the legislation has been chosen to cast such legislation in the best possible light. That does not change the fact that active euthanasia, which this proposal allows, is a form of suicide.



Our apologies if we seem fixated. We are merely trying to bring out the points that are most likely to resonate with people who may be in favor of suicide. There are many problems with legalizing suicide.

Perhaps specificity is needed to get across our point. We are concerned that this resolution allows those with a long term, terminal illness to opt for active euthanasia. For example, someone diagnosed with HIV. They may have several years left with proper care, many with relatively low amounts of discomfort or pain, before it developes into full-blown AIDS. We are concerned that someone receiving such a diagnosis may, in their despair, choose suicide, and that this legislation permits it.

The basic human drive for survival is strong, but so is the darkness of depression and defeat.

For the record, we are in support of passive euthanasia at the end of one's life. We honor DNR orders in our country, and ignoring such orders carries harsh penalties for medical personnel.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Even with full blown AIDS, the possibility of living a full satisfying life is possible. It is normal for a person to go into a "depression" after they find out they have contracted HIV or have reached full blown AIDS, so yes it would be a terrible waste to allow them to determine they don't want to live after finding that out. In the situation of HIV/AIDS, usually a patient is put on a anti-depressant if the signs of depression are there. It would be really be a great loss for the person with HIV/AIDS and for the world in general, IMHO, for someone to make a decision to die in this situation than seek counseling and get the appropriate help, because they still have lots to offer and no need to end it.

We would like to point out how psychologically debilitating it can be to offer a 'way out' to someone who has chosen to struggle through extreme pain.

Note that pregnant women who have chosen to attempt natural childbirth can often be undermined by medical personnel who ask whether or not they would like pain medication.

This leads us to believe the same would be true of someone with chronic pain.

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

We are concerned about the language of this clause. Noting many people who fight bravely against fibromyalgia, arthritis, and many other forms of painful, chronic, but survivable diseases, we are troubled by the UN saying "You can always just end it if it gets to be too hard."

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Even with full blown AIDS, the possibility of living a full satisfying life is possible. It is normal for a person to go into a "depression" after they find out they have contracted HIV or have reached full blown AIDS, so yes it would be a terrible waste to allow them to determine they don't want to live after finding that out. In the situation of HIV/AIDS, usually a patient is put on a anti-depressant if the signs of depression are there. It would be really be a great loss for the person with HIV/AIDS and for the world in general, IMHO, for someone to make a decision to die in this situation than seek counseling and get the appropriate help, because they still have lots to offer and no need to end it.

We wholeheartedly agree. Which is why we oppose this legislation.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Can we leave the hyperbole behind?

I can't speak for cancer, but I can tell you that it fucking hurts like hell when you wake up from heart surgery. Even with enough morphine to cause hallucinations.

1) AFTER the heart surgery is over, you are no longer in a terminal illness state.
2) How long did this pain last? Did it last more than a month?
3) I still don't see how you can use an "I can do it, so can you" argument as a justification on personal decision. How is that an argument when we're saying they should get to have this option when deciding how they want to be treated?

Even with full blown AIDS, the possibility of living a full satisfying life is possible.I agree....so did the author "Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life."

As far as I can see, you are worried about people deciding the first time things look bleak that they can decide to quit living. That's not what the proposal allows.

"You can always just end it if it gets to be too hard."You are still going to have a hard time preventing people jumping of bridges if they really want to, regardless of it is in legislation or not, but this particular proposal does not deal with them. You will always get people who are not of good judgement deciding to end things. This doesn't deal with them either. From the proposal "...and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life."

Thus I'd put your concerns down to a simple misunderstanding about the proposal, and I hope this response has reduced concerns.That does not change the fact that active euthanasia, which this proposal allows, is a form of suicide.

source (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7422)
"Suicide, whether irrational or rational, for unrelated reasons is not euthanasia. Nor is euthanasia the forced killing of another person"
I'm guessing that a medical dictionary is written by someone more qualified on what constitutes euthanasia than either of us, or anyone else on here.

1) AFTER the heart surgery is over, you are no longer in a terminal illness state.Indeed, one could argue someone who had heart surgery was ever in a terminal illness state.

Indeed, one could argue someone who had heart surgery was ever in a terminal illness state.

....

let's not go that far

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487813

Hmm.
Interesting how the proposal that just reached quorum here is in direct conflict with the Euthanasia Rights Convention, which also made quorom (and is now in the queue). Don't even bother trying to argue that "oh, this resolution has nothing to do with euthanasia" b/c it does. The whole point of it was to ensure a "right to die" if an individual wishes it.
This is total crap, guys.
It is likely that we will, yet again, have two resoltions in the UN body of "law," or whatever it is we call it, that conflict with each other. Either the UN can make laws that enforce some sort of immoral judgement on a nation, or it can't. We cannot have both laws. This is why the UN resolutions look like the garbage that they are.
Mods... at some point, if two resolutions conflict, you are going to have to make a call and get rid of one of them.

--Rooty

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487813

Hmm.
Interesting how the proposal that just reached quorum here is in direct conflict with the Euthanasia Rights Convention, which also made quorom (and is now in the queue). Don't even bother trying to argue that "oh, this resolution has nothing to do with euthanasia" b/c it does. The whole point of it was to ensure a "right to die" if an individual wishes it.
This is total crap, guys.
It is likely that we will, yet again, have two resoltions in the UN body of "law," or whatever it is we call it, that conflict with each other. Either the UN can make laws that enforce some sort of immoral judgement on a nation, or it can't. We cannot have both laws. This is why the UN resolutions look like the garbage that they are.
Mods... at some point, if two resolutions conflict, you are going to have to make a call and get rid of one of them.ELC was deleted for illegality; your point is moot.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487813

Hmm.
Interesting how the proposal that just reached quorum here is in direct conflict with the Euthanasia Rights Convention, which also made quorom (and is now in the queue). Don't even bother trying to argue that "oh, this resolution has nothing to do with euthanasia" b/c it does. The whole point of it was to ensure a "right to die" if an individual wishes it.
This is total crap, guys.
It is likely that we will, yet again, have two resoltions in the UN body of "law," or whatever it is we call it, that conflict with each other. Either the UN can make laws that enforce some sort of immoral judgement on a nation, or it can't. We cannot have both laws. This is why the UN resolutions look like the garbage that they are.
Mods... at some point, if two resolutions conflict, you are going to have to make a call and get rid of one of them.

--Rooty

As happened when ALC passed, when one passes, all others that contradict or duplicate it in quarom will be deleted. Until that one passes, they can stay in quarom because victory of a specific bill is not guaranteed.

I agree....so did the author "Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life."

With due respect to the representative from Hirota, this quote is from the argument for the legislation in its introduction. It contains no binding legislation.

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

This clause allows the option of suicide if the person is "suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care". There is nothing to prevent such a choice being made long before the drugs or dependence is required. Indeed, the language is even in a future tense, as bolded.


As far as I can see, you are worried about people deciding the first time things look bleak that they can decide to quit living. That's not what the proposal allows.

With respect, the representative from Hirota has not demonstrated how it does not allow it.


You are still going to have a hard time preventing people jumping of bridges if they really want to, regardless of it is in legislation or not, but this particular proposal does not deal with them.

We agree, which is why we fail to understand why it keeps getting brought up. We are concerned with suicide provided by a physician.


You will always get people who are not of good judgement deciding to end things. This doesn't deal with them either. From the proposal "...and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life."

Again the representative quotes from the introduction, which contains no 'MANDATE', no binding legislation.


Thus I'd put your concerns down to a simple misunderstanding about the proposal, and I hope this response has reduced concerns.

Unfortunately, it has not. We do not see that you have made a case that this legislation addresses our concerns.


source (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7422)
"Suicide, whether irrational or rational, for unrelated reasons is not euthanasia. Nor is euthanasia the forced killing of another person"
I'm guessing that a medical dictionary is written by someone more qualified on what constitutes euthanasia than either of us, or anyone else on here.

We recognize that dictionaries are written by people, and people, no matter how educated or experienced, have biases. We expect that the author of this definition is in favor of euthanasia.

This same dictionary quoted by the representative from Hirota defines suicide as "The act of causing ones own death." which easily encompasses requesting that someone else end one's life. Therefore we continue to assert that euthanasia is a form of suicide.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

We would like to point out another flaw in this legislation.

Is dependence on others for personal care truly worth ending one's life? Is someone who is in little to no pain, but doesn't have the use of their limbs, so without quality of life that it is better to end it?

Dependence on others for personal care encompasses every resident of every nursing home. Is the need for someone to take care of day to day tasks enough to legitimate suicide?

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We would like to point out another flaw in this legislation.

Is dependence on others for personal care truly worth ending one's life? Is someone who is in little to no pain, but doesn't have the use of their limbs, so without quality of life that it is better to end it?

Dependence on others for personal care encompasses every resident of every nursing home. Is the need for someone to take care of day to day tasks enough to legitimate suicide?

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

I agree this is a major flaw in this legislation as well. Not only would that include persons in a nursing home but would also include anyone in a in-home nurse situation like someone with a stroke.

Yes it would, categorical uh-oh.That was specifically the ELC's problem; doesn't make all euthanasia blockers illegal. Until this thing is passed, that is.

This is true, the burden of proof is on us. Much of that proof is written into the proposal itself. Why is it an internation issue? Because it involves human rights, and something the UN should have a hand in is seeing to the advancement of human rights.Just because there's a Human Rights category there doesn't make all human rights issues international in scope. My nation's euthanasia laws have no effect on your or any other nation; so again, how is this international?

I can see why that would sound abrasive, and I apologize for wording it so sharply. However, I haven't heard any arguments outside of "every nation should choose this for themselves" and in the absence of premises, I'm left to draw the most likely conclusion. I may have exaggerated it a bit, but in doing so, I hoped to draw out a reasonable argument as to why anyone would not permit self-determination for people who are endlessly suffering."Most likely conclusion"? I really don't need to tell you what a logical misstep it is to conclude that sovereignty advocates on human rights proposals want to oppress their people -- "most likely" or not. I advocate sovereignty on most human rights proposals (including this one); yet I could argue my nation's human rights record is better than yours. The question here is whether UN intervention is necessary on this issue -- and seeing as how I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it is, it is perfectly reasonable to maintain that it isn't.

I mean even at that including day by day care as a criteria would include even children with Down's Sydrome and adults with Alzheimers.

That still puts the interests of the government ahead of the individual on a deeply personal matter. It is surely up to each person to decide how to exercise their faith, or lack of faith. Government instituted religions are in my opinion horrible things that should not exist in a civilised society.

Lady Yssandra Faren,
Triumvir of Enn

OOC: Still NatSov in my book.

Governments have a duty to protect their people: Sometimes that includes protecting them from themselves... And in democratic regimes (which St Edmund and the St Edmundan Antarctic are, although I gather Enn is not...) there will usually be widespread popular support for legislation that upholds the moral beliefs of a majority of the adult population.

OOC: Not just NatSov, 'Moral Decency' too...
In RL such religious objections to suicide are a part of mainstream Christian theology, mainstream Islamic theology (Yes, despite the 'suicide bombers' & 9/11: There's a minority opinion which holds that dying in order to kill non-muslims counts as being killed in battle rather than as suicide, but even then they're using that perceived loophole in the rule rather than actually rejecting it altogether), mainstream Hindu & Buddhist teachings (because one is reincarnated as one deserves based on previous lives, and deliberately cutting one's period of incarnation short is trying to cheat...), and probably the teachings of some other faiths as well. I can't, offhand, think of any currently-practised religion of any significant size or age that endorses euthanasia...

"I believe it's the government's job to make sure we don't burn up here on Earth and that's it."
-Jon Stewart

"Jon Stewart"?

Theocracies be damned (shush, Jiffjeff). Their arrogance and presumptousness that just because their government follow a religion means that all of their citizens are following it or even want to follow it is one of the least worthy arguments for opposing a resolution where the entire person believes in individual rights. If they want to sit by every hospital bed as the person's considering euthanasia going "you'll burn forever for you sins", fine. However, they should not be permitted to impose their narrow viewpoint on their populace just because their government decides it wants to rule by an ancient textbook.

Did I say anything specifically about theocracies? Plenty of democracies have also been (and some still are) run according to the basic moral principles of various religions that majorities of their populations have supported...
OOC: See also my comment to Enn, just before this one...

OOC: Yes, I've noted how euthanasia was the one area where the UN and the real world are at odds (some might argue same-sex marriage is the same way, but that's where we see obvious progress in the same direction, just more slowly. Euthanasia there is little progress in that direction so.....). Off the top of my head, I can only think of one nation that has legalized active Euthanasia, though most have legalized passive.

However, I note that this is an alternate universe with different beliefs, policies, politicians, etc. It is not unreasonable to deviate and in this case, the UN has already chosen to deviate once

-------------------

"Jon Stewart"?

Runs a political show. I guess the attempt to broadcast FTBC in St Edmund fell through.

Did I say anything specifically about theocracies? Plenty of democracies have also been (and some still are) run according to the basic moral principles of various religions that majorities of their populations have supported...

Doesn't change my opinion. Ruling your nation by an ancient, outdated textbook - whether chosen by your people or not - still is arrogant. You are forcing your religious belief (a questionable violation of UNR #19) upon your populace, even if there are people who don't believe in your religion. Are there limits to my argument - absolutely. When some extremists start using parts of their religion to execute members of other religions, then yes that belief should be prosecuted. However, if your only justification (and this applies to many governments in RL and is why so many of them deviate so heavily in so many areas from the Christian - or whatever is the majority religion there - philosophies) is that you read it in a book, then you really need to think a bit more.

Now give me something better than a stack of thousand year old papers for an argument.

For the people of Fuzzitonia this is formost an issue of nat sov. The people of any soveriegn nation have a right through their duly elected governments to determine the make up of their laws as they pertain to economic, social, ehtical and moral concerns. The democratic process is the best mechanism for protecting the rights and concerns of peoples. To have a world body step in and place itself above the elected representatives of a nation, especially in instances that go directly to the heart of the "will of the people" of a given nation is a sure recipe for tyranny.
The purpose of the UN should be for disparate nations to have a place to interact, and decide issue that relate to international concerns such as international trade, common uses of neutral territories such as the oceans, and as a body to resolve diputes should they arrise and the possibility of peaceful resolution exists. It is not the place of the UN to override the will of elected peoples, and insert itself into daily political lives of citizens of numerous nations who many times have little agreement on issues of this nature.
This resolution while maybe well intended, is a hard blow to the ideal of national sovereignty, and one step further in denying the self determination of people within their own states. The free peoples of Fuzzitonia find this future resolution an anathema to their long struggle for national atanomy, and their ability to order their lives as they, not some far reaching uninterested body sees fit.
Matt
President of Fuzzitonia

Doesn't change my opinion. Ruling your nation by an ancient, outdated textbook - whether chosen by your people or not - still is arrogant. You are forcing your religious belief (a questionable violation of UNR #19) upon your populace, even if there are people who don't believe in your religion.

We find the disdain that the representative from the Forgottenlands shows for religious belief deeply saddening.

We find the dismissal of religious belief based on the fact that many religions holy books go back for a millenia or more absolutely astounding.

A good argument could be made that this upholds said religious beliefs, rather than undermining them. Millions of people throughout history have seen the worth of the precepts upheld by the world's major religions, and the representative from Forgottenlands dismisses them as 'outdated'.

We would point out that many other ideals still hold to texts that go back to the beginnings of civilization. Democracy enjoys a long history of writing that goes back to the ancient Greeks, and their texts are still read in classrooms when teaching the fundamentals of democracy.

We find the implied 'rule by current fashion' implied by the representatives dismissal of anything old as 'outdated' to be abhorrent. We shudder to imagine a world ruled by the fad of the moment.

We would like to point out that the world's major religions are all living faiths, and continue to adapt with the understanding of the body of believers.

The representative calls ruling by a holy book to be arrogant. Why should adhering to wisdom that has been upheld over time and across nations be arrogant? Isn't it much more arrogant to dismiss the wisdom without a second thought?

The representative from the Forgottenlands seems to labor under the delusion that people who practice religion do so because they have a rulebook, and whatever the rules say they are bound by. The representative doesn't leave room for the fact that people follow their religions because they agree with the precepts contained therein.

At this point, no one is asking people who don't follow their religion to be against euthanasia because the religion says to. We're simply asking that those who are for euthanasia might understand that we have a deep, legitimate reason to be against it.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Tell me, Mr Uriel, how much faith do we place on people that say "this is true because Mr Olembe from Ausserland said it was"

A moderate amount, simply because we have spent enough time speaking with Olembe that we know he is working from multiple resources, and has spent a lot of time considering his beliefs and can explain them thoroughly. That isn't to say we'll jump on the bandwagon to agree with him, but his vote carries some weight. However, we have little added respect for the person presenting the argument - they merely went on blind faith that what Mr Olembe said was true and used his only method of evidence or proof as being that Mr Olembe said it.

Now, how much faith do we place when a person presents the arguments Mr Olembe presented to reach the conclusion he's given, giving credit to him and perhaps expanding further upon Mr Olembe's arguments, showing intelligence and understanding of the issue at hand and convincing members not based upon the strength of our faith in the individual, but rather upon the strength of the arguments. I'd say a heck of a lot.

Now, let's replace Mr Olembe in all previous instances with "the bible".

Tell me, why should I accept an argument of "because the bible said so". If you want to debate the issue, say WHAT the bible says, WHY it says it, and FURTHER the explaination. If your explaination is "we'll go to hell if we pass this law", then you've got a lot of explaining to do of why we'll be going to hell and why I should even consider hell to exist. If your argument is about furtherment of human beings or strength of character or yadda yadda yadda, I'll listen and we can have an actual discussion.

If your best argument is because a book says so, you have no argument.

If your best argument is because a book says so, you have no argument.
What you infidels don't realize is that if that book is the source of absolute moral law, of course what it says should carry weight. You have a source for your moral principles, somewhere: presumably for a heretic such as yourself, nestled deep within the bowels of your black black heart. That source of moral principle is no more or less authoritative, in the abstract, than any other, and thus no one person's moral principles are better or worse. However, the reason I'm better than you is that I know the One True Light of Holy Mother Wena, whereas you are just a heathen.

The Holy Texts of Wenaism explicitly proscribe euthanasia. They are the source of absolute moral law for Wenaists. Now, we wouldn't dream of imposing our morals on you - we have better things to do with our time. But ensuring that all Wenaists abide by the laws of their religion is a necessary act of good, compassionate governance. Because, whilst you "don't believe" they'll go to Hell, they in fact will, and we're determined to save them from that.

We oppose this resolution, because we care.

Yes, you force the 2% of your nation that don't follow Wenaism to follow YOUR religion. They don't need to abide by the laws of their religion, they need to abide by the laws of YOUR religion - or at least, what you profess is your religion.

Anyways, shall we look at the logic so far

"Why?"
"Because the book says so"
"And what happens if you don't follow the book?"
"You go to hell"
"How do you know you'll go to hell?"
"Because the book says so"
"And who deemed this?"
"Wena"
"And you know Wena deemed this because?"
"Because the book says so"

If someone sees an actual argument in there, please tell me.

Yes, you force the 2% of your nation that don't follow Wenaism to follow YOUR religion. They don't need to abide by the laws of their religion, they need to abide by the laws of YOUR religion - or at least, what you profess is your religion.
So you don't force any of your nationals to follow laws that go against their own moralities? Objectivists are exempted from tax claims? Every system of law ends up forcing some to subjugate themselves to principles they disagree with.

As for your continuing blasphemy, I debase myself by continuing to respond to this. But I will say this: even if you do not think Wena is the Mother Godddess (and if you don't think that, you're wrong and will burn, heathen, but whatever), the Holy Texts are no less a source than any other. Some of what you believe is derived from the writings, sayings, teachings, ideas, of others. Reason, intuition, or whatever, require a framework within which to operate.

So you don't force any of your nationals to follow laws that go against their own moralities?

I didn't say I don't, and I may have more to say on the matter later, but you said that you were forcing them to follow THEIR religion, when really it was YOUR religion that you are forcing them to follow. Call a spade a spade, it ain't no fucking shovel.

I didn't say I don't, and I may have more to say on the matter later, but you said that you were forcing them to follow THEIR religion, when really it was YOUR religion that you are forcing them to follow. Call a spade a spade, it ain't no fucking shovel.
Yes, well, who cares about heathens anyway? I guarantee whatever indignities we heap upon in this lifetime is but a drop in the ocean of the pain Holy Mother Wena in her most infinite mercy* will pile upon them.

*This does not extend to relieving the suffering of the seriously ill, for such an act clearly violates the dignity of the human person.

It is my belief that it is not the governments responsibility or right to prevent the death of a person who wishes to commit suicide. If a person, terminal illness patient or not, has the desire to end their life, it should be completely within their power to do so. Government has no place to say "Oh, but he/she might get better". It is the persons own choice to think of that. If they decide that suicide is a better answer, then that is their choice and government has no place in it.


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

It is my belief that it is not the governments responsibility or right to prevent the death of a person who wishes to commit suicide. If a person, terminal illness patient or not, has the desire to end their life, it should be completely within their power to do so. Government has no place to say "Oh, but he/she might get better". It is the persons own choice to think of that. If they decide that suicide is a better answer, then that is their choice and government has no place in it.


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

And it is the free people of Fuzzitonia's belief that it is their place, and their place alone, to decide the place and powers of their government. It is not the place of some third party UN Ambassador form a little known nation to dictate to them what type of government they should have. The Republic of Fuzzitonia is sure that it's populace can reach descisions on their duly elected representatives without the unasked for intrusion of third parties.

And it is the free people of Fuzzitonia's belief that it is their place, and their place alone, to decide the place and powers of their government. It is not the place of some third party UN Ambassador form a little known nation to dictate to them what type of government they should have. The Republic of Fuzzitonia is sure that it's populace can reach descisions on their duly elected representatives without the unasked for intrusion of third parties.

It may be the place of one person to let the government dictate whether or not they live, but it is a basic human right to make that decision themselves, without the help of some third party government interfering in the private life of so-called free peoples.

Lucky you. However, not everyone in a similar situation would have such fortitude.

Secondly, I'm assuming you are were not terminally or chronically ill (or rather, still are) - which is great, as you'd have been exempt in such a resolution, so member states could still have forced you to lug bricks around or do "the deed."

I don't want to pry about your personal life, but it sounds like you are blurring the lines between suicide and euthanasia. You say you've been unfortunate enough to be desperate enough to consider death as an option, but it implies past tense rather than present, which suggests to me you got better. The people this proposal would apply to do not have such a luxury.

What line between suicide and euthanasia? They're both a choice to discontinue one's life because life has grown too painful. You can make all the distinctions you want to try to make them seem essentially different, but they're not. Whether a person is suffering from prolonged psychological strain or a terminal medical condition, they're still in so much pain that they would prefer death to life.

As far as my circumstances, they have gotten better physically, but the circumstances that created the psychological issues are still there. I just made a choice to continue my life despite the universe fucking me over and not putting any end in sight. Others make a different choice. They, like me, see no way out, but choose to deal with it by ending their life. I respect their choice.

And by the way, there still may be good reason to keep them alive even in cases of terminal and debilitating physical illness. They can help researchers by testing a new medical treatment, provide an essential mentor and support to another person who has recently been diagnosed with a similar illness, ect. There are plenty of reasons to keep a person alive, and while I personally find such an act to be a violation of their liberty, some nations may be in dire enough straits that they need to make such choices. They may need to keep people who want to die alive for the betterment of others.

We would like to say that in Love and esterel, the main opinion is that it’s the disease that brings about death, and not the withdrawal of treatment. Death is nothing more than a cell senescence disease gone too far.

Right now there are no cures for cell senescence, but cell senescence is only disease. Our booming cell senescence scientific research understand its different forms better every year and hope to be able to cure them in several decades, as in Love and esterel death is not acceptable, apart from personal decision.

"I can do it so everyone can"

I'd very much appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.

It's quite clear that not everyone can do it. And frankly, I don't think it's fair to ask people to do it.

But sometimes, when you're running a country and everyone's counting on you, you have to decide that even though it's not fair, it's necessary. It's not fair to conscript young men and send them off to war, but when that became necessary, nations have done it. It's not fair to make people jump through thirty-something administrative hoops just to get a passport because some wackos did it and ended up causing a lot of trouble, but when it became necessary, nations have done it. It's not fair to make schoolchildren feel like prisoners in their school just to make sure they're safe, but when it became necessary, nations have done it.

When you've experience later stages of cancer and know just how much pain you're in at that point, come back and tell me whether the situations actually compare. Until then, you don't have a fucking clue whether your pain was truly a debilitating pain or not. I'm sure someone sitting in a torture room is suffering enough to consider death, but yet, somehow, they get out of it feeling just fine. The same can't be said about cancer. How long did you suffer this pain? A few days? A week? How about several YEARS.

Months, actually. Combine intense depression with three separate infections that left me barely able to move, then migraines that by rights should have kept me in a dark room sobbing all day...yeah. While I'm not sure if it compares to the pain of terminal cancer and the medications that leave your body in ruins and trying to deal with one's impending death, neither are you, I think.

I honestly can't believe you said that.

If you have trouble believing it when someone says something, it's usually best to ask them to clarify their stance to make sure of what they're saying before you respond to their point.

Yes, well, who cares about heathens anyway? I guarantee whatever indignities we heap upon in this lifetime is but a drop in the ocean of the pain Holy Mother Wena in her most infinite mercy* will pile upon them.

*This does not extend to relieving the suffering of the seriously ill, for such an act clearly violates the dignity of the human person.

Y'know, when you start having to make extensive exceptions to an assumption, your answer tends not to be complete.

So you don't force any of your nationals to follow laws that go against their own moralities? Objectivists are exempted from tax claims? Every system of law ends up forcing some to subjugate themselves to principles they disagree with.

Alright, I'll tell you what. Our taxes are set up to fund our civil services - everything from road and rail construction to hospitals to education systems to daycare systems to insurance systems to relief systems. If these objectivists are willing to forgo all of these systems, they don't have to pay taxes. In fact, there are people who do just that - society calls them hermits.

I'd very much appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.

If you have trouble believing it when someone says something, it's usually best to ask them to clarify their stance to make sure of what they're saying before you respond to their point.

The problem is that whether you intended to or not, you actually did say it. You gave the impression that you've had a personal, comparable experience and that therefore, your statements should have more influence, more justification, and be taken as being more worthy than other people's.

But hey, if you don't want words put in your mouth, lets focus on the words that left that impression:

but it can be done.

That aside

It's quite clear that not everyone can do it. And frankly, I don't think it's fair to ask people to do it.

But sometimes, when you're running a country and everyone's counting on you, you have to decide that even though it's not fair, it's necessary. It's not fair to conscript young men and send them off to war, but when that became necessary, nations have done it. It's not fair to make people jump through thirty-something administrative hoops just to get a passport because some wackos did it and ended up causing a lot of trouble, but when it became necessary, nations have done it. It's not fair to make schoolchildren feel like prisoners in their school just to make sure they're safe, but when it became necessary, nations have done it.

You compared three security issues to a human rights issue?

Months, actually. Combine intense depression with three separate infections that left me barely able to move, then migraines that by rights should have kept me in a dark room sobbing all day...yeah. While I'm not sure if it compares to the pain of terminal cancer and the medications that leave your body in ruins and trying to deal with one's impending death, neither are you, I think.

Ok........I withdraw my statement.

-----------------------------

And by the way, there still may be good reason to keep them alive even in cases of terminal and debilitating physical illness. They can help researchers by testing a new medical treatment, provide an essential mentor and support to another person who has recently been diagnosed with a similar illness, ect. There are plenty of reasons to keep a person alive, and while I personally find such an act to be a violation of their liberty, some nations may be in dire enough straits that they need to make such choices. They may need to keep people who want to die alive for the betterment of others.

It was many months ago when Mikivity brought up......Starship Galactica I think (can't remember, the one where Earth is dead and the handful of survivors are running around the galaxy). Anyways, I spent a long time thinking about it, and I still came to the same conclusion.

It is a damn shame if someone is selfish enough that they would jepordize an entire nation or race's very existance, but I still believe that it is their absolute right, and I believe the burden is on the society to convince them not to invoke that right and not be selfish.

The problem is that whether you intended to or not, you actually did say it. You gave the impression that you've had a personal, comparable experience and that therefore, your statements should have more influence, more justification, and be taken as being more worthy than other people's.

But hey, if you don't want words put in your mouth, lets focus on the words that left that impression:

I'll stand by my statement that it can be done. But to clarify, not everyone is willing to do it and as such cannot do it, and I respect their choice to not live with that kind of pain, and I think it's unfair to ask them to live with it.

You compared three security issues to a human rights issue?

Sure.

Ok........I withdraw my statement.

Alright then.

It was many months ago when Mikivity brought up......Starship Galactica I think (can't remember, the one where Earth is dead and the handful of survivors are running around the galaxy). Anyways, I spent a long time thinking about it, and I still came to the same conclusion.

It is a damn shame if someone is selfish enough that they would jepordize an entire nation or race's very existance, but I still believe that it is their absolute right, and I believe the burden is on the society to convince them not to invoke that right and not be selfish.

That's Galactica, yes. And by "convince", are you excluding convincing them by letting them know it's against the law?

First as no one has responded to my earlier concern, I would like to repost it as I believe it was probably overlooked in the midst of the debate of whether or not the UN should be allowed to pass such a resolution.


5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

This article of the resolution allows people to invoke the right to die for others, including by euthenasia. I do not believe that anyone has a right to choose this for another. If a person is capable of living without the need of a life support device, that person should be allowed to live until they are able to make the choice for themselves. I understand that in certain circumstances this is impossible, but the possible abuses of this article are dangerous to allow.

Yes, you force the 2% of your nation that don't follow Wenaism to follow YOUR religion. They don't need to abide by the laws of their religion, they need to abide by the laws of YOUR religion - or at least, what you profess is your religion.

Anyways, shall we look at the logic so far

"Why?"
"Because the book says so"
"And what happens if you don't follow the book?"
"You go to hell"
"How do you know you'll go to hell?"
"Because the book says so"
"And who deemed this?"
"Wena"
"And you know Wena deemed this because?"
"Because the book says so"

If someone sees an actual argument in there, please tell me.

Pardon my saying so, but with this argument you could also be trying legalize murder. Society is based on a set of rules based on what the majority believes is right. Some of these rules are known to everyone as to what is moral and immoral, but others, this issue in particular, are not so cut and dry. Is it better to force people to suffer under the constraints of their ailments, or allow them to prematurely end their life through humane means? I'm not sure if it's for this body to decide.

In Avernoan, we have legalized euthenasia, but that is not to say that every nation should be run the same as ours. Governments based more fully on religion should not be forced to violate the beliefs of their citizens. The argument that governments should not force their religion on their people is only partially accurate. If said government is forcing its citizens against its will, then you are correct. However, if the majority of the people under the governments rule follow that religion, and have decided on a government based upon that religion, then I would have to say that that is a valid and acceptable form of government. The fact that you are so quick to dismiss any government that has a religious basis could be seen as you attempting to force your on view on others, which is exactly what you claim to be against.


The argument that people are just going to commit suicide so we should just let them, is also an invalid argument. It's just like saying people are going to steal, so we should make it legal.

Earlier I had stated that I would support this resolution if it weren't for article 5, but now after thinking the matter a little more, I'm not so sure I could ever support this resolution or another of its nature.

That's Galactica, yes. And by "convince", are you excluding convincing them by letting them know it's against the law?

Absolutely. Considering it was just a few posts ago where I ranted about arguing using "this book says so" as your argument isn't really an argument.....the same applies for law. Certainly, it has a bit more validity in, say, a court of law, but that doesn't make it an argument.

This article of the resolution allows people to invoke the right to die for others, including by euthenasia. I do not believe that anyone has a right to choose this for another. If a person is capable of living without the need of a life support device, that person should be allowed to live until they are able to make the choice for themselves. I understand that in certain circumstances this is impossible, but the possible abuses of this article are dangerous to allow.

I should not that it does not mandate you accept those scenarios, merely frees your nation to allow such scenarios to occur. It is up to your own, national government to decide how best to implement such a system.

Pardon my saying so, but with this argument you could also be trying legalize murder.

False. Murder can be argued against without using a set of books to back up your claims. Might wish to try it some day, it might help develope your understanding.

Society is based on a set of rules based on what the majority believes is right.

You're actually discussing tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is not some hard, fast rule that we play by. Many of the minority rights legislation started not because the majority supported it, but because the government was responsible to these people and finally recognized its responsibility. Many of the beliefs bathed in bigotry are often overridden by a law that was not supported by the majority - or a slim majority if it was.

Some of these rules are known to everyone as to what is moral and immoral, but others, this issue in particular, are not so cut and dry.

Agreed. So why you think your nation has a right to impose its own upon its people is beyond me

Is it better to force people to suffer under the constraints of their ailments, or allow them to prematurely end their life through humane means?

Considering my posts so far today, I can't possibly imagine what my answer would be to that question.

I'm not sure if it's for this body to decide.

I'm not sure it's for your nation to decide. It should be the individual who decides something that concerns their personal morals. What does this resolution do? Oh yes - it gives the power to the INDIVIDUAL.

In Avernoan, we have legalized euthenasia, but that is not to say that every nation should be run the same as ours.

Nor would every government have exactly the same model for dealing with euthanasia from having to sign one form to having sign 30 plus get 3 psyche exams, 7 witnesses, and one must be a judge who doesn't make visits to the hospital ward. The method used to perform euthanasia would be different (from a bullet to overdose of pain killers), the type of qualifications needed would be different, and on and on the list goes.

I find it amazing that people keep assuming that just because the UN deals with 3 or 4 points of a piece of legislation that's going to need to be several hundred points long covering everything from tax breaks and incentives to procedures, qualifications, and so on, they insinuate that we're imposing a one-size fits all solution. No, we're putting a framework, you make the details.

Governments based more fully on religion should not be forced to violate the beliefs of their citizens.

If the citizens believe in their religion, they will not exercise their right. One of the important points of rights is the ability to revoke the right. In this case, one can undoubtedly revoke euthanasia.

Riddle me this: how is its the government's perogative to ensure that a person doesn't defy his/her own beliefs. How can a government of multi-million people be so absolutely certain that the individual believes in what the government thinks that person believes.

The argument that governments should not force their religion on their people is only partially accurate. If said government is forcing its citizens against its will, then you are correct. However, if the majority of the people under the governments rule follow that religion, and have decided on a government based upon that religion, then I would have to say that that is a valid and acceptable form of government.

Wait......you have a problem with dictators infringing on people's rights but no problems when a democracy does it?

The fact that you are so quick to dismiss any government that has a religious basis could be seen as you attempting to force your on view on others, which is exactly what you claim to be against.

Oh yes. I'm enforcing my view on the LEADERS of a nation that they should STOP enforcing THEIR view on their CITIZENS. I am always baffled by how so many NatSovs protect the rights of nations forcing an opinion on their citizens by complaining how IntFeds are pushing their beliefs on national leaders. Actually, even more relevant would be IndSovs.

The argument that people are just going to commit suicide so we should just let them, is also an invalid argument. It's just like saying people are going to steal, so we should make it legal.

While that isn't my argument and I partially agree with you, I do believe that it is a person's right to commit suicide, and I see no reason why that shouldn't be extended to getting some help in the process.

Earlier I had stated that I would support this resolution if it weren't for article 5, but now after thinking the matter a little more, I'm not so sure I could ever support this resolution or another of its nature.

*shrugs*

Ok.

Some people keep bringing up "duly elected governments" and such.

The UN is NOT entirely POPULATED by DEMOCRACIES. There are a number of benevolent (and some not so benevolent) dictators who follow the laws of the UN.

Ruling your nation by an ancient, outdated textbook - whether chosen by your people or not - still is arrogant.

Declaring the holy book of a major religion to be "outdated" because you happen to disagree with some of its teachings is extremely arrogant.

Declaring the holy book of a major religion to be "outdated" because you happen to disagree with some of its teachings is extremely arrogant.

You know, when a textbook has information that is later proven to be wrong - you know, things like microorganisms are discovered so the source of illness is figured out - we often say it is outdated and needs updating. A lot of the spiritual stuff isn't outdated and most of the morality stuff, but there are a huge number of things that are of a different nature - including health (as I hinted at before) - that are quite outdated. So yes, I would say my claim that it is outdated stands.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

There are only two scenarios where a person is allowed to choose for another person. Medical personel during triage, which is a given and happens in real life hospital A&E departments, warzones and disaster areas every day. The other exception is parents/guardians of children, or adults mentally incapable of making the decision for themselves.

I don't like having one person make the decision for someone else either, but the two above are necessary. Note in the second scenario, I did strongly urge that nations put a law in place to ensure the request goes through their legal system. There is nothing in there that says a nation has to say yes to any of those requests. In fact, unless the person is really suffering badly, and there is no hope at all of survival, I hope they won't allow it because the person themselves didn't choose it, but that is up to each nation to decide.

Note that metally incapable in that clause does mean they were mentally incapable before the illness, injury that the right to die is being sought over. People with autism who develope cancer for example, because children and mentally impared adults were never in the position to be able to clearly express their wish to invoke right to die verbally and/or or via a living will before the illness/injury.

Anyone else who is incapable of making the decision because the illness/injury has made them incapable of doing so must have a living will stating it is their wish to die, otherwise they fall under the line "no person can make a right to die decision for another person."

The UN is not trying to force anything onto anyone. This proposal simply gives the individual a choice. If that person is religious, believes right to die is immoral or doesn't want to die for any reason, this proposal won't force them to. It is their decision. I know this legislation may go against a governments wishes but, like most human rights legislation, it isn't written to keep governments happy, it is written to give a right to all people, and it is up to them to excercise that right or not.

You know, when a textbook has information that is later proven to be wrong - you know, things like microorganisms are discovered so the source of illness is figured out - we often say it is outdated and needs updating. A lot of the spiritual stuff isn't outdated and most of the morality stuff, but there are a huge number of things that are of a different nature - including health (as I hinted at before) - that are quite outdated. So yes, I would say my claim that it is outdated stands.


That only applies if we agree that some of the moral guidelines (such as the one about suicide) are outdated, and as far as I'm concerned you still haven't provided any convincing reason why the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic should take your opinion on the matter as binding...
Please bear in mind that in St Edmund & the associated countries we have scientific proof (not just theological belief) for the fact that humans -- and at least some other types of sapient beings, too -- have spirits that survive after their material bodies die, and that in most cases then go somewhere else, so that although we don't have any direct evidence for the existence of Hell we are perhaps a bit warier about the possibility than people from nations (such as yours?) where contact with spirits is unknown...

The UN is not trying to force anything onto anyone. This proposal simply gives the individual a choice. If that person is religious, believes right to die is immoral or doesn't want to die for any reason, this proposal won't force them to. It is their decision. I know this legislation may go against a governments wishes but, like most human rights legislation, it isn't written to keep governments happy, it is written to give a right to all people, and it is up to them to excercise that right or not.

It is forcing governments to legalise euthansia. It is therefore forcing those governments whose members believe suicide & murder to be sins, and who count most if not all cases of euthanasia as falling into one or the other of those two categories, to legalise and thus to make easier the commission of sins. Knowingly assisting in the commission of sins is itself sinful, and thus you are forcing those governments to sin.

Declaring the holy book of a major religion to be "outdated" because you happen to disagree with some of its teachings is extremely arrogant.

I really think the new testament is one of the most beautiful books about love ever written.

But is the following less arrogant? May someone please explain me where love is in this?

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

It is forcing governments to legalise euthansia. It is therefore forcing those governments whose members believe suicide & murder to be sins, and who count most if not all cases of euthanasia as falling into one or the other of those two categories, to legalise and thus to make easier the commission of sins. Knowingly assisting in the commission of sins is itself sinful, and thus you are forcing those governments to sin.

Well, they can take comfort in knowing that they attempted to defeat a resolution they disagreed with and therefore, did everything within their power short of resigning the UN. The failure to resign from the UN is due to the sheer necessity to prevent sin in so many other areas and therefore they are relieved of their guilt in assisting in the commission of sin.

That only applies if we agree that some of the moral guidelines (such as the one about suicide) are outdated, and as far as I'm concerned you still haven't provided any convincing reason why the government of the St Edmundan Antarctic should take your opinion on the matter as binding...

This is an issue that directly effects one individual - the individual that requests to be euthanized. Fine you could argue two and toss in the doctor that performs the operation, but that's beside the point. (Before I continue, don't you say that the family and friends suffering grief means they are being directly affected.) So what gives you the right to decide the morals for your CITIZENS? What gives you the right to decide the morals for the INDIVIDUALS? What arrogant thought makes you think that you have any moral obligation to force a book that not all believe in any many find outdated upon your entire population? Why should your moral guideline be forced upon the individual?

Every argument you have made between the national and international levels could easily be applied between the individual and national levels. Now give me a damn argument for your position that isn't a question of whether one moral is more worthy than another and give me a bloody reason for that moral other than "a book told me to".

EDIT: If your argument is nothing greater than "a book told me to", then explain to me why the individual can't choose his own bloody book that he, individually, wants to follow.

So what gives you the right to decide the morals for your CITIZENS? What gives you the right to decide the morals for the INDIVIDUALS? What arrogant thought makes you think that you have any moral obligation to force a book that not all believe in any many find outdated upon your entire population? Why should your moral guideline be forced upon the individual?

Because we are an elected government, and so far a majority of the electorate seems to favour this policy.

Every argument you have made between the national and international levels could easily be applied between the individual and national levels. Now give me a damn argument for your position that isn't a question of whether one moral is more worthy than another and give me a bloody reason for that moral other than "a book told me to".

Give me one reason why "Forgottenlord told me so" should be considered a better argument...

Tell me, Mr Uriel, how much faith do we place on people that say "this is true because Mr Olembe from Ausserland said it was"

A moderate amount, simply because we have spent enough time speaking with Olembe that we know he is working from multiple resources, and has spent a lot of time considering his beliefs and can explain them thoroughly. That isn't to say we'll jump on the bandwagon to agree with him, but his vote carries some weight. However, we have little added respect for the person presenting the argument - they merely went on blind faith that what Mr Olembe said was true and used his only method of evidence or proof as being that Mr Olembe said it.

Now, how much faith do we place when a person presents the arguments Mr Olembe presented to reach the conclusion he's given, giving credit to him and perhaps expanding further upon Mr Olembe's arguments, showing intelligence and understanding of the issue at hand and convincing members not based upon the strength of our faith in the individual, but rather upon the strength of the arguments. I'd say a heck of a lot.

Now, let's replace Mr Olembe in all previous instances with "the bible".

Tell me, why should I accept an argument of "because the bible said so". If you want to debate the issue, say WHAT the bible says, WHY it says it, and FURTHER the explaination. If your explaination is "we'll go to hell if we pass this law", then you've got a lot of explaining to do of why we'll be going to hell and why I should even consider hell to exist. If your argument is about furtherment of human beings or strength of character or yadda yadda yadda, I'll listen and we can have an actual discussion.

If your best argument is because a book says so, you have no argument.

This is an excellent parallel. Believers have lived with their religious texts throughout generations, and find that time and again the warnings, instructions, and admonishments contained therein have led them to better lives and greater truth.

For the faithful, their holy texts are close friends who have proved tried and true time and again.

We are not asking you to believe in the Bible or any other holy text. We are asking you to acknowledge that others do so, and for potentially very good reasons.

We are not asking you to outlaw suicide in your nation, violating your personal beliefs. It is you who are asking us to legalize suicide in our nations, therefore violating our personal beliefs.

In all of Airatum's arguments against this proposal, we have never said "because [insert holy text] says so". Please review our arguments.

We did take exception to you dismissing all holy texts as 'outdated', and atempts to rule based on their precepts as 'arrogant'.

Airatum has a histor of being first a monarchy, then a socialist democracy, a capitalist democracy, and is now a theocracy. Each transition was a peaceful development of our political state based on the will of the people. We have chosen to govern ourselves by our faith, and have no desire to enact laws that contradict them.

Again, we don't expect you to understand the wisdom of our holy book. In fact, we fully expect those who aren't of the faith not to understand it. All we ask is that you grant there may be legitimacy in faiths that have lasted millenia, and been embraced by millions of people who know that their faith has made them better people, and their world a better place.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

For those citing the "holy book" argument, I can only state that if your good citizens are so devoted to principles which do not permit them, in good conscience, to contemplate the exercising of self-sovereignty as postulated under this resolution, then none of them, presumably, will use it. What of those that don't believe though? We are forcing no one to actively kill another individual, we are simply asking that an individual's right to determine their fate be respected, hence the concept of individual sovereignty.

As for those who say their governments will not be happy with this law, so be it. The U.N. cannot rule to every state's liking after all and we are not ruling in favour of governments here, but in favour of people, of individuals.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It occurs to us that the text of the legislation carries the seed of an argument against itself.

We note that the legislation allows medical professionals to refuse to perform euthanasia if it is against their beliefs. We thank the author(s) for recognizing that no one should be forced to participate in euthanasia against their deeply held moral objections.

We wonder, however, at the choice of dividing line.

Are hospital administrators required to participate in euthanasia against their moral objections if there are physicians on staff who are willing? Are they required to provide the necessary equipment, and the facility for the procedure?

What about the governing boards of hospitals? Are they required to permit suicide within the hospitals they govern, thereby being forced to passively participate in spite of moral objections?

What about the taxpayers? Are they required to participate in euthanasia against their moral objections? Airatum, as in many countries, medicine is paid for at least partially by the people of the country. Are they required to fund suicide?

It seems the authors of this legislation at least recognized that forcing someone to participate in euthanasia against their beliefs was a problem. We feel that carrying this to its logical conclusion is enough reason to vote AGAINST this proposal as a whole.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We did take exception to you dismissing all holy texts as 'outdated', and atempts to rule based on their precepts as 'arrogant'.
I suppose FL wanted to refer to some outdated principles written in many "holy texts", and also that he wanted to say that it is arrogant to qualify them as "universal"/"entirely true"/"perfect" or arrogant to not put them in perspective.
And that doesn't mean at all that these texts are not beautiful.

I gave an example about the New Testament in my former post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11242174&postcount=119

To equilibrate here are some about some others holy books:



[4:34] …As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)…

[4-11] Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…





Book of Exodus, chapters 7 - 12:

The 10 Plagues of Egypt are the ten calamities inflicted upon Egypt by God in the Biblical story recounted the book of Exodus,

1. (Exodus 7:14-25) rivers and other water sources turned to blood ('Dam')
2. (Exodus 7:26-8:11) reptiles (commonly believed to be frogs) ('Tsfardeia')
3. (Exodus 8:12-15) lice ('Kinim')
4. (Exodus 8:16-28) 'Arov', meaning either flies or wild animals
5. (Exodus 9:1-7) disease on livestock ('Dever')
6. (Exodus 9:8-12) unhealable boils ('Shkhin')
7. (Exodus 9:13-35) hail mixed with fire ('Barad')
8. (Exodus 10:1-20) locusts ('Arbeh')
9. (Exodus 10:21-29) darkness ('Choshech')
10. (Exodus 11:1-12:36) death of the firstborn ('Makat Bechorot')


Deuteronomy 14:2

For you are a holy people to Yahweh your God, and Yahweh has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples who are on the face of the earth.


Love and compassion or arrogance and vengeance?

What about the governing boards of hospitals? Are they required to permit suicide within the hospitals they govern, thereby being forced to passively participate in spite of moral objections?
This argument makes no since. Thinkn about it they are not involved at all actualy. That's like saying policemen have moral problems because murder's kill people. Really there hospital may do it but they have no involovement. It is something that just happened to happen.


Again, we don't expect you to understand the wisdom of our holy book. In fact, we fully expect those who aren't of the faith not to understand it. All we ask is that you grant there may be legitimacy in faiths that have lasted millenia, and been embraced by millions of people who know that their faith has made them better people, and their world a better place.

This does not hurt the bible at all actualy if people belive in the bible and follow the church they want have euthanasia. Also, I have read the bible extensivly and know alot about it. Do you know it supports burning gay people to death? Maybe you should think back about "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth", that has many plesent thoughts in it.

All we ask is that you grant there may be legitimacy in faiths that have lasted millenia. Actualy we are people of these faiths do not need to have anything to do with euthnasia so stop talking about this. I agree there is alot of things in the bible that are very good. Non-religious have been around forever so maybe you should give some legitimacy to THEM TO.

It occurs to us that the text of the legislation carries the seed of an argument against itself.

We note that the legislation allows medical professionals to refuse to perform euthanasia if it is against their beliefs. We thank the author(s) for recognizing that no one should be forced to participate in euthanasia against their deeply held moral objections.

We wonder, however, at the choice of dividing line.

Oh God.

Simple, those who are in direct guilt of being a part of the operation and those that are indirect are on opposite sides of the line

Are hospital administrators required to participate in euthanasia against their moral objections if there are physicians on staff who are willing? Are they required to provide the necessary equipment, and the facility for the procedure?

Yes

What about the governing boards of hospitals? Are they required to permit suicide within the hospitals they govern, thereby being forced to passively participate in spite of moral objections?

Yes

What about the taxpayers? Are they required to participate in euthanasia against their moral objections? Airatum, as in many countries, medicine is paid for at least partially by the people of the country. Are they required to fund suicide?

Fuck no. If you want to make it so that euthanasia requires they pay it for themselves, enjoy. I don't legislate based upon nation's stupid decisions so don't even bother making that argument.

It seems the authors of this legislation at least recognized that forcing someone to participate in euthanasia against their beliefs was a problem. We feel that carrying this to its logical conclusion is enough reason to vote AGAINST this proposal as a whole.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Yes, yes, yes. I suppose if one of your doctors walks into a hospital ward and starts stabbing people randomly, you hold the administrators, the governers or the taxpayers responsible? No, you hold the bloody (literally) doctor responsible.

Can we move on to intelligent conversation?

-------------------

Give me one reason why "Forgottenlord told me so" should be considered a better argument...

Gee, you really don't understand the entire concept of debate, do you? The entire point is to present your arguments to convince the other person (or people watching, or whatever) that you're right based upon the STRENGTH OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, not the strength of your character.

Next!

------------------

Again, we don't expect you to understand the wisdom of our holy book. In fact, we fully expect those who aren't of the faith not to understand it. All we ask is that you grant there may be legitimacy in faiths that have lasted millenia, and been embraced by millions of people who know that their faith has made them better people, and their world a better place.

I respect their legitamacy - they are more than welcome to operate within the nation. Explain to me how legitamacy of a faith means that you can impose its policies on all your citizens, including those who do not follow your faith.

EDIT: For the record, this is what I meant about arrogant.

I suppose FL wanted to refer to some outdated principles written in many "holy texts", and also that he wanted to say that it is arrogant to qualify them as "universal"/"entirely true"/"perfect" or arrogant to not put them in perspective.
And that doesn't mean at all that these texts are not beautiful.

I gave an example about the New Testament in my former post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11242174&postcount=119

To equilibrate here are some about some others holy books:

*non-germane biblical texts*

Love and compassion or arrogance and vengeance?Lovely. Now explain how the fuck this is relevant to anything.

Lovely. Now explain how the fuck this is relevant to anything.

I can. People wanna use their holy books as premises for their conclusions, L&E has the right idea -- put holes in their premises.

Yes, yes, yes. I suppose if one of your doctors walks into a hospital ward and starts stabbing people randomly, you hold the administrators, the governers or the taxpayers responsible? No, you hold the bloody (literally) doctor responsible.

If the hospital had a policy that encouraged stabbing people, and the governors and taxpayers arranged to pay for the knife with the express purpose that it be used to stab people, yes.


I respect their legitamacy - they are more than welcome to operate within the nation. Explain to me how legitamacy of a faith means that you can impose its policies on all your citizens, including those who do not follow your faith.

The people of Airatum have chosen to govern themselves by their faith.

The representative from Forgottenlands demonstrates a severe prejudice against faith. The representative sees no problem with a people enforcing secular ideals upon their populace, but if the ideals are tied to a god or gods, they are to be rejected as illegitimate.


EDIT: For the record, this is what I meant about arrogant.

We would like to point out that most of the debaters here seem to be operating in a respectful (humble) manner. It is the representative from Forgottenlands who seems to be namecalling and dismissing others out of hand (arrogance).

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum have chosen to govern themselves by their faith.

The representative from Forgottenlands demonstrates a severe prejudice against faith. The representative sees no problem with a people enforcing secular ideals upon their populace, but if the ideals are tied to a god or gods, they are to be rejected as illegitimate.

Just where are we forcing a "secular ideal upon [our] populace"? When we grant people right to decide what their own ideals are, how are we forcing an ideal upon them? It's like saying that you are having homosexuality forced upon you because you might run into two men kissing.

Just where are we forcing a "secular ideal upon [our] populace"? When we grant people right to decide what their own ideals are, how are we forcing an ideal upon them? It's like saying that you are having homosexuality forced upon you because you might run into two men kissing.

Please see our former argument about requiring taxpayers to fund 'medical procedures' that they don't agree with.

If everyone could be relied on to choose the right thing, there wouldn't be need for laws. By very nature, governments attempt to force a minority to do something they don't wish to do.

Our point is that your problem is not with a government mandating something that everyone must follow, regardless if they agree with the majority or government. Your problem is whether or not someone has reasoning that includes a god or gods, or not.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

For those citing the "holy book" argument, I can only state that if your good citizens are so devoted to principles which do not permit them, in good conscience, to contemplate the exercising of self-sovereignty as postulated under this resolution, then none of them, presumably, will use it. What of those that don't believe though? We are forcing no one to actively kill another individual, we are simply asking that an individual's right to determine their fate be respected, hence the concept of individual sovereignty.

"Ahem..."

(Yesterday, 5:43 PM #118)
The UN is not trying to force anything onto anyone. This proposal simply gives the individual a choice. If that person is religious, believes right to die is immoral or doesn't want to die for any reason, this proposal won't force them to. It is their decision. I know this legislation may go against a governments wishes but, like most human rights legislation, it isn't written to keep governments happy, it is written to give a right to all people, and it is up to them to excercise that right or not.
It is forcing governments to legalise euthansia. It is therefore forcing those governments whose members believe suicide & murder to be sins, and who count most if not all cases of euthanasia as falling into one or the other of those two categories, to legalise and thus to make easier the commission of sins. Knowingly assisting in the commission of sins is itself sinful, and thus you are forcing those governments to sin.

****************************************

As for those who say their governments will not be happy with this law, so be it. The U.N. cannot rule to every state's liking after all and we are not ruling in favour of governments here, but in favour of people, of individuals.

Do I really have to remind the deputy-ambassador from Compadria that the UN is an association of nations, represented here by agents of their governments, and not some "superior" level of government that's elected by & for the peoples of those nations?

I really think the new testament is one of the most beautiful books about love ever written.

But is the following less arrogant? May someone please explain me where love is in this?
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

"Oh, do your scholars translate that last word as "condemned"? Ours say that it should be "judged", which implies a possibility of being found innocent, instead: I suppose the difference is because your main church is Augustinean whereas ours is Pelagian..."

(OOC: Alfred Sweynsson doesn't know enough about the ancient languages concerned to argue about the details of this translation ,and neither do I, but that different wording would fit the Godwinnian Catholic Church's theology better than the RL-standard translation does...)

Please see our former argument about requiring taxpayers to fund 'medical procedures' that they don't agree with.

I responded to it. I said it was a bogus complaint since it would be ridiculous to claim that the UN is forcing your government to fund this procedure. If you want your citizen to pay for it, go for it. Problem solved. I'm not going to help those who are having problems because they didn't bother passing laws to fix the problems themselves when the UN hasn't touched the issue.

If everyone could be relied on to choose the right thing, there wouldn't be need for laws. By very nature, governments attempt to force a minority to do something they don't wish to do.

Most laws are built upon protecting people from those who chose the wrong thing. However, when the only victim is the same as the person that made the choice, how is it the government's right to decide for that person.

Our point is that your problem is not with a government mandating something that everyone must follow, regardless if they agree with the majority or government. Your problem is whether or not someone has reasoning that includes a god or gods, or not.

Someone is not reading my arguments

It seems the authors of this legislation at least recognized that forcing someone to participate in euthanasia against their beliefs was a problem. We feel that carrying this to its logical conclusion is enough reason to vote AGAINST this proposal as a whole.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Nice argument.

I suppose FL wanted to refer to some outdated principles written in many "holy texts", and also that he wanted to say that it is arrogant to qualify them as "universal"/"entirely true"/"perfect" or arrogant to not put them in perspective.

But he provided no proof that they were "outdated" other than his own assertions...

To equilibrate here are some about some others holy books:[4:34] …As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)…
[4-11] Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…
Book of Exodus, chapters 7 - 12:

The 10 Plagues of Egypt are the ten calamities inflicted upon Egypt by God in the Biblical story recounted the book of Exodus,
1. (Exodus 7:14-25) rivers and other water sources turned to blood ('Dam')
2. (Exodus 7:26-8:11) reptiles (commonly believed to be frogs) ('Tsfardeia')
3. (Exodus 8:12-15) lice ('Kinim')
4. (Exodus 8:16-28) 'Arov', meaning either flies or wild animals
5. (Exodus 9:1-7) disease on livestock ('Dever')
6. (Exodus 9:8-12) unhealable boils ('Shkhin')
7. (Exodus 9:13-35) hail mixed with fire ('Barad')
8. (Exodus 10:1-20) locusts ('Arbeh')
9. (Exodus 10:21-29) darkness ('Choshech')
10. (Exodus 11:1-12:36) death of the firstborn ('Makat Bechorot')

Deuteronomy 14:2
For you are a holy people to Yahweh your God, and Yahweh has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Love and compassion or arrogance and vengeance?

I was defending the fact that my government generally tries to follow Christian principles, not the Qur’an.
We in St Edmund are mostly Christians, of one sort or another, but not – except in a relatively small number of cases — Fundamentalists: We generally regard most of ‘Genesis’, and parts of ‘Exodus’ too as mythology rather than as instructions.
What’s supposed to be wrong with the passage from Deuteronomy?

What’s supposed to be wrong with the passage from Deuteronomy?

"Who God's people?"
"We God's people!"
"That's RIGHT mutha fucka! WE GOD'S PEOPLE."
"Not any o' YOU mutha fuckas! Just WE God's people!"
"And What!"



I'm sure they were less crude and more eloquent about it though.

I think people should get this straight. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IF THE BIBLE IS RIGHT OR NOT. This is about the current resolution. The bible has a very long list of odd things in it assorted. I think people should stop focusing on it. This resolution does not in anyway require religious people to be at all involved in euthataniasia.

PS: if you want to undermine the bible there are alot better quotes. BUT I suggest never to attack it because it is in the end a matter of faith and impossible to change peoples veiw.

. Actualy we are people of these faiths do not need to have anything to do with euthnasia so stop talking about this. I agree there is alot of things in the bible that are very good. Non-religious have been around forever so maybe you should give some legitimacy to THEM TO.

We do respect and acknowledge that secular points of view have merit. We have never dismissed secular arguments for being purely secular. We acknowledge that much great thought has come from a secular mindset, and in no way dismiss it. It is legitimate.

We were merely taking issue with the dismissal of religious thought as being 'outdated' and 'arrogant'.

We understand very much that those who are in favor of this proposal are motivated out of a commendable compassion for the suffering. We feel compassion for the suffering as well, and therefor can empathise with this proposal's supporters' ideas.

Again, we are not claiming that the secular world should follow our belief system. We are asking for respect for the various belief systems of the world.

The representative from the Forgottenlands seems to be very eager to argue matters of religion, and responds quickly to our requests for respect for religions (with continued argument that religion is outdated and arrogant, but responses nonetheless), but gives very few responses to our problems with this legislation which contain no references to our beliefs.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

"Who God's people?"
"We God's people!"
"That's RIGHT mutha fucka! WE GOD'S PEOPLE."
"Not any o' YOU mutha fuckas! Just WE God's people!"
"And What!"

I'm sure they were less crude and more eloquent about it though.

This is quite a misunderstanding of what it is to be 'God's chosen people' from a Biblical standpoint. It is very clear that God's chosen people, because they are favored, are held to a more stringent standard then the gentiles. It is an awesome responsibility, not something to be proud about.

I think people should get this straight. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IF THE BIBLE IS RIGHT OR NOT. This is about the current resolution.

We agree. We have not been trying to prove the Bible right, we have been asking that religious beliefs (and we have been very careful not to specify a belief system, in an attempt to avoid such a 'Bible is right' argument) not be dismissed out of hand simply because they are religious beliefs.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Nice argument.

Thank you.

We invite those who are in favor of this legislation to critique this argument. Thus far we have simply received the equivalent of 'this is stupid' from the representative of Forgottenlands.

We also await critique of the other arguments that we have presented, including the clause that seems to allow suicide based on needing someone to provide basic needs, regardless of any other suffering.

The simplest way to get this debate back on track from the hijack about religion, is to go back and find the opposition arguments that had nothing to do with religion, and respond to them.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Again, we don't expect you to understand the wisdom of our holy book. In fact, we fully expect those who aren't of the faith not to understand it. All we ask is that you grant there may be legitimacy in faiths that have lasted millenia, and been embraced by millions of people who know that their faith has made them better people, and their world a better place.

EDIT: For the record, this is what I meant about arrogant.

In going back through the posts, we realized that our comment probably did not come across the way we intened it. For the record, we were not stating that the representative of Forgottenlands is incapable of understanding the wisdom of our holy book. If the representative spent a significant amount of time reading and meditating on it, it's entirely possible the representative could understand it.

The reason we don't expect others to understand it, is that we aren't arrogant enough to expect that others will have studied it, or even given it a second thought. We wouldn't expect the representative of Forgottenlands to understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics, though the representative may very well understand them from years of study.

The world's major relgions are not easily condensed into quick statements. People spend their entire lives delving into the mysteries contained therein, and often proclaim that they have just scratched the surface at the end of their lives.

We don't understand the ancient writings of Forgottenlands, simply because we have never studied them.

Arrogance would be assuming that the representative knows all of the subtleties of our faith.

We wholeheartedly apologize for the misleading statement, and hope the representative of Forgottenlands can forgive our miscommunication.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Thank you.

We invite those who are in favor of this legislation to critique this argument. Thus far we have simply received the equivalent of 'this is stupid' from the representative of Forgottenlands.

We also await critique of the other arguments that we have presented, including the clause that seems to allow suicide based on needing someone to provide basic needs, regardless of any other suffering.

The simplest way to get this debate back on track from the hijack about religion, is to go back and find the opposition arguments that had nothing to do with religion, and respond to them.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Not at all you forgottenlands is not just saying he does not agree with you. He is giving reasons. Each thing he says has a reason. Maybe you don't agree with it but he does.

Religious or moral people have no part in euthanasia if they don't want to:
1)The person has the option to do or not to.
2)The doctor who proforms euthanasia does not need to do it. He also has an option.
3)the taxpayers don't need to pay for it because the government has the option of wether or not they do.

So how in anyway does this infrindge upon religious/moral peoples rights? They have no part in it. This is all about giving those people that want it the choice to do it.

Not at all you forgottenlands is not just saying he does not agree with you. He is giving reasons. Each thing he says has a reason. Maybe you don't agree with it but he does.

Religious or moral people have no part in euthanasia if they don't want to:
1)The person has the option to do or not to.
2)The doctor who proforms euthanasia does not need to do it. He also has an option.
3)the taxpayers don't need to pay for it because the government has the option of wether or not they do.

So how in anyway does this infrindge upon religious/moral peoples rights? They have no part in it. This is all about giving those people that want it the choice to do it.

Thank you for clarifying the Forgottenlands points. Perhaps we missed them because of the tone of the representative's argument.

Fuck no. If you want to make it so that euthanasia requires they pay it for themselves, enjoy. I don't legislate based upon nation's stupid decisions so don't even bother making that argument.

Not only has the representative from Forgottenlands dismissed all religion, but also socialized medicine.

There is the clear implication that we are talking about medically assisted euthanasia. Does the representative from NewFoundCanada really think that in a system of completely funded health care that this legislation will not be interpreted to mandate that euthanasia also be provided by the medical community, as long as there is a doctor who will consent?

Are we to understand that with this legislation, we can simply outlaw euthanasia within our borders by providing no medical equipment or facilities for consenting doctors to use?

Thank you for your response.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Yes, yes, yes. I suppose if one of your doctors walks into a hospital ward and starts stabbing people randomly, you hold the administrators, the governers or the taxpayers responsible? No, you hold the bloody (literally) doctor responsible.

Can we move on to intelligent conversation?

Another one of Forgottenlands 'points'.

To which we responded,

If the hospital had a policy that encouraged stabbing people, and the governors and taxpayers arranged to pay for the knife with the express purpose that it be used to stab people, yes.

and received no response.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Humorously, if I had worded it only slightly differently and changed that knife to a scapple, there are very few nations that would lay charges

Anyways, before I address the issue of stabbings, I need to address this (since taxpayers is a rather interesting point in it all)

Not only has the representative from Forgottenlands dismissed all religion, but also socialized medicine.

False. Socialized medicine is a principle that I support. However, it is more than an unfair argument to claim that taxpayers are forced to fund Euthanasia treatments. That is a decision by the national government - the UN has not and continues to refuse to support a socialized health care policy - in fact, I'm certain such a policy would be defeated. Therefore, it is a decision to the individual government to decide whether it will choose to fund euthanasia procedures or not. The government makes such a decision and it would be unfair to claim that the they are innocent victims of being forced to pay up (nor the taxpayer that funds them). Your nation has a decision to make - either it sees euthanasia as so abhorent that it will not fund it, or it sees the concept of preferential treatment, even on something they object to, as being worse. Difficult choice to make? I'm sure it is. However, the choice that you do make is not the fault of the UN's. it is the fault of your government. On this point, you have options to relieve them of that burden. We ain't forcing you to do shit in that regards

---------------------

Hospitals and regional health authorities are not expected to support treatments that they agree with, they are expected to support treatments that are reasonably safe, and able to be conducted. There may be several treatments for cancer, and the facility might have a preference for one, but any that can be given by that hospital based upon training, willingness, equipment availability, and the safety and viability of the treatment are all, normally, permitted within that hospital. Yes, they would be required to permit euthanasia within their areas, but that doesn't indicate they are giving their support for it. Hell, they could give a bloody sermon as they legalize it on the evils of euthanasia. It isn't an a statement of support for the treatment, it's a statement of requirement - they are required to legalize it.

Are we to understand that with this legislation, we can simply outlaw euthanasia within our borders by providing no medical equipment or facilities for consenting doctors to use?

What do you think the term "loophole" means. It has been publicly acknowledged there are two intentional loopholes in this resolution and I'm sure there are many more. NEXT.

--------------------

This is quite a misunderstanding of what it is to be 'God's chosen people' from a Biblical standpoint. It is very clear that God's chosen people, because they are favored, are held to a more stringent standard then the gentiles. It is an awesome responsibility, not something to be proud about.

It's a "you're with us or against us" style statement. No, it isn't declaring war against them but rather condemning them to eternal flames. It's a "we are worthy and all others are sinners" statement. Yes....not arrogant

---------------------

Finally, it is clear that no one has figured out what I meant by arrogance. The arrogance isn't in the actual holy texts itself. The arrogance comes when you rule by them. Reason: you are telling your people that your way is right, their way is wrong based SIMPLY ON A BOOK, ON A MATTER OF FAITH. It is not based upon any reason, any argument that could possibly be used to convince them that your way is right. There is no logic to it, there is no reason, there is nothing but faith. You tell those that don't believe that they must follow your religion even when their own religion disagrees with yours.

That's arrogance.

That's arrogance.
In point of fact.

There ain't nothing wrong with believing, but when you take that belief, make it a law, and say that everyone has to follow it, that's just megalomaniacal. Condemn us for being the heathens we are all you want, but the UN is an organization of all peoples, and shall not legislate based on the religion of a few of its members.

Like Forgottenlord says, just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's mandatory.

Now give me a damn argument for your position that isn't a question of whether one moral is more worthy than another and give me a bloody reason for that moral other than "a book told me to".I'm fucking tired of this douchebaggery, and I'm gonna do something about it right now.

Exercising my executive powers (and I get to do shit like that, 'cause I'm the president), I hereby declare Fernandaism the state religion of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Everybody in the nation has to belong to the church, abide by its teachings, and pay taxes to support it. Also, all government doctors have to comport to Fernandaist values when practicing medicine, and that means they can't murder patients and call it "right to die." But that's not because of some book; Fernandaists don't need no books to tell them what their morals are. They just follow my three basic rules: I do whatever the fuck I want.
You do whatever the fuck I say.
Shut the fuck up about it.Now, I say euthanasia sucks ass, and by rules 2 and 3, euthanasia is illegal. I even wrote up a law saying "Euthanasia sucks ass," but the tough-guy Ausserlander short dudes in my legal department made it all spiffy and legal-sounding:

-- EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 554 --

The President

Forbidding government-employed doctors to practice euthanasia

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the Federal Republic to assure that doctors and other medical professionals employed by the federal government comport to established conventions on medical ethics, in order to maintain the status of doctors and healers (especially those representing the government) as guardians of their patients' health and well-being; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Republic recognizes as an arbiter of medical ethics the Hippocratic Oath, which expressly states: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone," and "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death":

NOW THEREFORE I, by virtue of the authority invested in me as President of the Federal Republic, do hereby declare the following:

1. Neither doctors, nurses, nor any other medical professionals employed by the Federal Republic shall recognize the "right to die" when invoked by their patients, nor shall any above-cited professionals advise their patients of such "right";

2. Neither doctors, nurses, nor any other medical professionals employed by the Federal Republic shall engage in any practice of euthanasia involving the inducement of death, or assistance of patients to do the same, whether by voluntary, nonvoluntary, involuntary, direct or indirect means; nor shall any above-cited professionals be complicit in any act of euthanasia;

3. The Department of Justice must investigate all violations of Clause 2, and where suspects are alleged to have violated applicable federal laws on murder and manslaughter, prosecute the offenders;

4. State governments are strongly urged to investigate all violations of Clause 2, and where suspects are alleged to have violated applicable state laws on murder and manslaughter, prosecute the offenders;

5. In accordance with the Fuck the United Nations Act of 2006 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467922), nothing in this document shall be subject to alteration in order to bring the Federal Republic into compliance with international law, unless directed so by future Executive Order or act of the Federal Congress.

"The Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico,"
Manuelo Fernanda

10 Frowning Street

June 26, 2006See? My government's moral objections to this proposal aren't because "a book told me to"; it's because I fucking said so.

You got a problem with that?!

[Department of State advisory: Any indication by the president of the foundation of religion in the Federal Republic is the opinion of the president alone, and bears no legal authority within the Federal Republic, as any establishment of religion would violate the Federal Constitution.]

Well I have, but that's another matter entirely.

You got a problem with that?!

As long as you are not in the UN I don't care. Join and there are sooo many illegal things done it is not funny.

Well I have, but that's another matter entirely.I don't get it.

As long as you are not in the UN I don't care. Join and there are sooo many illegal things done it is not funny.Perhaps you'd care to list them, because I can't find any?

I don't get it.

It was a quip concerning what you said to Forgottenlord. I was simply playing on the fact that you asked Forgottenlord whether or not he had a problem with your position on Euthanasia, by inserting my own opinion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

ooc:
Just thought I'd tell a little story or two. I doubt it'll change any opinions but it might change some details...

My old biology teacher's husband retired a couple of years ago. He was almost immediately diagnosed with lymphatic cancer. The survival rates are here: "REAL SYSTEM" (Revised European and American Lymphoma Classification System)

This newer system was developed so that doctors all over the world will, hopefully, someday use the same classification scheme. This system classifies stages based on the outlook after treatment, as well as the appearance, chemical makeup, and genetic identity of the cancer cells.

The four stages commonly used in the REAL System are as follows:

EXCELLENT PROGNOSIS: There is a 5-year survival rate of over 70% for people with this stage. If the cancer is eliminated, then most people survive much longer than this and go on to live cancer-free lives. This category includes anaplastic large T-/Null cell lymphoma; marginal zone B-cell MALT lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma.

GOOD PROGNOSIS: There is a 5-year survival rate of about 50% to 70%. This category includes marginal zone B-cell nodal lymphoma; lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma; Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia; and small lymphocytic lymphoma (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia).

FAIR PROGNOSIS: There is a 5-year survival rate of about 30% to 50%.This category includes primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; Burkitt's lymphoma; and high-grade B-cell Burkitt-like lymphoma.

POOR PROGNOSIS: There is a 5-year survival rate below 30%. This category includes peripheral T-cell lymphoma; lymphoblastic lymphoma; and mantle cell lymphoma. His prognosis was poor.
Now this would make him a candidate for requesting a termination in a living will, correct?
Well he underwent revolutionary treatment which was painful and was told at the end it had failed. They had given up hope on him.

Last year my old headmistress was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. 2/3rds of those diagnosed die. She underwent chemo - which she really reacted badly to. However she was back at work after 6mths. Still a candidate for termination?
3mths later during a check-up she was told it had reappeared and she had a month to live. 5 weeks later she was dead.

Mr.W on the other hand is out walking across the downs and is going to their holiday home in Madiera this summer. It's probable had this happened a couple of years earlier, before the new treatment, he'd be dead by now.


R.I.P. Mrs. H. :(

ps. Mr. & Mrs. W consider it a miracle of God. However, Mrs H was also religious...

See? My government's moral objections to this proposal aren't because "a book told me to"; it's because I fucking said so.

You got a problem with that?!

Yes, but it has long since been proven that arguing with you is like striking oneself in the head with a hammer - it hurts and is absolutely pointless.....provided you hit yourself with the right side.

"Oh, do your scholars translate that last word as "condemned"? Ours say that it should be "judged", which implies a possibility of being found innocent, instead: I suppose the difference is because your main church is Augustinean whereas ours is Pelagian..."

(OOC: Alfred Sweynsson doesn't know enough about the ancient languages concerned to argue about the details of this translation ,and neither do I, but that different wording would fit the Godwinnian Catholic Church's theology better than the RL-standard translation does...)

You right, and I'm pretty happy that some Christians, even if they seems to be very few, use "judged" instead of the word "condemned", used by the vatican and most churches. I also hope that the Vatican and these others churches will follow this way and update this horrible sentence.
Mark 16:16
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWI.HTM

That said, even if it's better, I'm sorry that such a distinction is still arrogant.

NB:There are some more traductions with "judged guilty" or "be judged and punished".



What’s supposed to be wrong with the passage from Deuteronomy?

The exodus chapters are about blinded vengeance, including many innocent people.

The deuteronomy passage is, I'm sorry for that, once again arrogance. What is the point to declare one's own people to be above all other peoples who are on the face of the earth. Which people is above all peoples in this earth, jews, Aryan or oneother?

Problem is with the bible is it's so damned vague. Anyone can take any meanings from it to justify anything. Mistranslations, deliberate biased translations and any number of reasons all lead to different and contrasting understandings of the bible.

Don't blame the bible for that, blame the people who translate it.

That's pretty accurate, however the bible contains lots of sections which we might consider outdated, such as wearing pearls. Apparently wearing pearls is frowned upon in some sections in the bible. In a modern society that is patently daft.

The problem is then, if one part of the bible is old and outdated, how much of the remainder is similarly redundant today?

Problem is with the bible is it's so damned vague. Anyone can take any meanings from it to justify anything. Mistranslations, deliberate biased translations and any number of reasons all lead to different and contrasting understandings of the bible.

Don't blame the bible for that, blame the people who translate it.

I'm pretty sure you right about successive translations of the bible and most holy books, I even really hope so. I have several christians friends and relatives and I personnaly like this religion and really think it's a great one, as many others.

I hope you will not take my posts here at a attack against any religion, but only as an argument against any refusals to put holy books in perspective and against any refusals to relativize them.

(The link I posted of "Mark 16:16" is the vatican's website)

So how in anyway does this infrindge upon religious/moral peoples rights? They have no part in it. This is all about giving those people that want it the choice to do it.

Sigh. I've already explained this twice. Simply by forcing governments to legalise euthansia, and thus to make it easier, you are making them automatic accessories to the sins that they believe are involved in the commission of that act...
Third time lucky?

In point of fact.

There ain't nothing wrong with believing, but when you take that belief, make it a law, and say that everyone has to follow it, that's just megalomaniacal. Condemn us for being the heathens we are all you want, but the UN is an organization of all peoples, and shall not legislate based on the religion of a few of its members.

Like Forgottenlord says, just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's mandatory.


We're NOT trying to make the UN "legislate based on the religion of a few of its members", we're trying to keep it from legislating against the religion of some of its members...

Sigh. I've already explained this twice. Simply by forcing governments to legalise euthansia, and thus to make it easier, you are making them automatic accessories to the sins that they believe are involved in the commission of that act...
Third time lucky?

Fine, vote against it. How would the UN passing this resolution with your government making every attempt to stop the UN from passing it infringe upon the religious morals/rights of your people?

Fine, vote against it. How would the UN passing this resolution with your government making every attempt to stop the UN from passing it infringe upon the religious morals/rights of your people?
Except the government decides to remain in the UN. This is the argument you generally use for federalism/compliance: we all choose to be members. So by choosing to remain in the immoral cesspit of the UN, the government is guilty. It has not made "every attempt".

So you are in effect arguing that only nations that agree with you should be permitted to participate in the international community. How very "liberal" of you.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Except the government decides to remain in the UN. This is the argument you generally use for federalism/compliance: we all choose to be members. So by choosing to remain in the immoral cesspit of the UN, the government is guilty. It has not made "every attempt".

Somehow, I find there to be a distinction between an action where the only consideration is a single section of one's religious texts (say....the section regarding suicide/euthansia), and an action that requires the consideration of many sections of the religious text. Unless Euthanasia is the the ultimate sin in the eyes of your respective Lord, I have a hard time believing you won't be able to work around it.

So you are in effect arguing that only nations that agree with you should be permitted to participate in the international community. How very "liberal" of you.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

How amazing how a statement about a proposal determines a statement about membership. Amazing how quickly the predator tries to deliver the killing blow to its prey. One wonders if it ever checks to see if its prey can bite back.

But I guess such an action would require a pause for thought before acting.

Unless Euthanasia is the the ultimate sin in the eyes of your respective Lord, I have a hard time believing you won't be able to work around it.

If the killing occurs at the wish of the subject then it is, as even some pro-euthanasia campaigners call it, "assisted suicide": Many Christians do believe suicide to be "the ultimate sin" because, after all, it's the one sin whose perpetrators will never get a chance to repent & seek absolution before passing to their judgement...


**********************************

(OOC: I'm evidently not going to convince you.
You aren't going to convince Alfred Sweynsson, whose stance is based not only on his government's orders & his own religious beliefs but also on the fact that -- as a physician -- he himself is bound by the 'Hippocratic Oath'... and even if you somehow did manage to convince him personally, he would still have his government's orders to follow... and the Firstthane for Outsidestuff, having given him those orders, has now gone on a short holiday...
And the computer-system on which I do most of my keeping up with the forum won't let me access this particular thread, so that I can only comment here in the short time online that I get at the library after work before it closes for the evening, when there are a number of other sites that I also wish to check... so I personally am dropping out of this argument, without conceding surrender, but you should assume that Alfred is still continuing to uphold his & his government's views offstage...)

This is now at vote. Unsuprisingly, Hirota votes in favour.

While Liberastan accepts the right to die, we do not believe it should be enforced universally. We vote against.

Witchcliff believes the right of all individuals to decide for themselves when to die if they are terminally ill is a human right and should be enforced universally, so of course we voted for.

Individual?! Carefully consider this proposal as written. Determination by medical panels, courts! While this tribunals meet the suffering continues. You can not make this a matter that is clean and neat and tidy for everyone. It truly is the right of the individual. Governments have supervision rights only, not determination rights.

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

Our nation believes that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it. If folks want to burn their old socks, kill their dog, destroy their liquor cabinet, or end their life, we consider them free to do so and respect their choice. We do not give this right to terminally-ill persons exclusively. This is our nations policy, and we are well aware that many other nations would find this extremity of liberty reprehensible. As such, we would not attempt to impose this policy on other nations. And we do not appreciate the attempt to impose such a restrictive policy on HotRodian citizens by way of United Nations legislation. Accordingly, our nation has voted AGAINST the resolution "Individual Self-Determination".

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Allegory of the cave, just in case you don't already know, I wrote this resolution, Hirota submitted it for me :).

The government protections written into this are just that, protections for the individual and the medical proffessionals looking after him/her.

The protection in clause 4 is to make sure the person is suffering the illness diagnosed, that more than one doctor agrees the condition is terminal, that the person's mental state is stable and they are capable of making the right to die decision, and the person isn't being pushed into making this decision by their own doctor(s). Independant medical assessments can pick any or all of that up.

The one in clause 5 is to prevent a relative wanting to get rid of a person, mentally incapable of deciding right to die themselves, for monetry gain, or because the sick person is a burden ect. If someone doesn't have a living will, or is too young/mentally incapable of making one, then they should be protected as much as possible because for all we know, they don't want to die.

Allegory of the cave, just in case you don't already know, I wrote this resolution, Hirota submitted it for me :).

The government protections written into this are just that, protections for the individual and the medical proffessionals looking after him/her.

The protection in clause 4 is to make sure the person is suffering the illness diagnosed, that more than one doctor agrees the condition is terminal, that the person's mental state is stable and they are capable of making the right to die decision, and the person isn't being pushed into making this decision by their own doctor(s). Independant medical assessments can pick any or all of that up.

The one in clause 5 is to prevent a relative wanting to get rid of a person, mentally incapable of deciding right to die themselves, for monetry gain, or because the sick person is a burden ect. If someone doesn't have a living will, or is too young/mentally incapable of making one, then they should be protected as much as possible because for all we know, they don't want to die.


OOC: Is this directed at me?

Nope, its aimed at the post above yours. Noticed you had posted while I was typing that up, so went back and put the posters name in it ;).

I expected you to vote against, and understand why, so don't intend to argue with you about it :).

Nope, its aimed at the post above yours. Noticed you had posted while I was typing that up, so went back and put the posters name in it ;).

Ah. That makes sense.

I expected you to vote against, and understand why, so don't intend to argue with you about it :).

How disappointing. A debate on the issue could be a lot of fun. :cool:

What, the old universal human rights vs nat sov battle again, hasn't that one been done to death :D.

Besides, I respect you so don't want to get into any fights with you. Support, or lack of support, for this resolution will really be divided mostly between those who support nat sov over universal human rights vs those that support universal human rights over nat sov. I don't mean anything nasty with that comment, it is just a fact of the NSUN with this sort of legislation.

I know a lot of nat sovers won't like or support this resolution, and don't expect to be able to change their minds about that. Plus I've just started a new job and am too darn tired to bother trying :p.

I've already decided to agree to disagree in advance with nat sov inspired posts that turn up in this thread :).

What, the old universal human rights vs nat sov battle again, hasn't that one been done to death :D.

Pun intended on "death" given the topic of the thread, I presume. ;)

Besides, I respect you so don't want to get into any fights with you. Support, or lack of support, for this resolution will really be divided mostly between those who support nat sov over universal human rights vs those that support universal human rights over nat sov. I don't mean anything nasty with that comment, it is just a fact of the NSUN with this sort of legislation.

What's this? Respect for colleagues? :eek:

I know a lot of nat sovers won't like or support this resolution, and don't expect to be able to change their minds about that. Plus I've just started a new job and am too darn tired to bother :p.

Ah. I understand the tiredness. I have two jobs myself, one of them working nights. :(

I've already decided to agree to disagree in advance with nat sov inspired posts that turn up in this thread :).

A pre-emptive strike, as it were? :p

That's an interesting approach to it. I've noticed a lot of that lately with the proposal FAQs and such. We're countering folks before they even make their arguments.

Pun intended on "death" given the topic of the thread, I presume. ;)
Err, no, actually it wasn't. Told you I was tired :p.

What's this? Respect for colleagues? :eek:
Of course http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/8ff8cc79.gif

Ah. I understand the tiredness. I have two jobs myself, one of them working nights. :(
Two jobs?, yikes, one is enough for me. I've just started back in the workforce after a couple of years away from it, so the getting up early ect has been a bit of a shock to the system.

A pre-emptive strike, as it were? :p

That's an interesting approach to it. I've noticed a lot of that lately with the proposal FAQs and such. We're countering folks before they even make their arguments.
Sort of. I don't want this thread to decend into bickering ect, and won't contribute myself to anything that could blow up. It's just not worth it, and people are allowed to oppose this. I just hope those that do oppose are outnumbered 2 to 1 at least by those that don't, and that is reflected in the voting :).

The Republic of The Six Cities, does not believe that people should have the easy way out of everything. We need to advance in the fields of medical science and such tactics will not promote anything but the lack of enthusiasm from our scientists to discover new cures. Suicide is the exit of the coward.

This is wrong. It is essentially legalizing euthanasia, and should not be passed.

Being a great believer in Individual Sovereignty, I give Compadria's support to this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is wrong. It is essentially legalizing euthanasia,

You don't say. I wonder how you could've possibly gotten the impression that it does what it was intended to do

and should not be passed.

Why?

Ausserland has voted in favor of this resolution.

We believe that the right to make an informed and rational decision about the ending of one's own life is a fundamental human right -- one which no government, national or international, should have the ability to deny.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Federation of Methusela has casted a vote against this proposal as outlined earlied in the debate.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution because blah blah blah national sovereignty blah blah blah and I'm just sick and tired of talking about euthanasia.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic has cast its vote against this proposed resolution, for the reasons that I've already explained.

Hiho,

While the Dominion of Qphred supports the spirit of this resolution, they have voted against the resolution as specifically worded. The reason is that the use of the term "All persons of adult age" does not make any consideration for the mental state of the individual. It does not seem reasonable that a person who is not of sound mind but who is of adult age should be expected to have the ability to make this decision for themselves any more than a child would. Should this resolution fail and a new proposed resolution that instead states "All persons of adult age and of sound adult mind" (or similar) be put to vote, Qphred would support this resolution.

Thanks,
The Dominion of Qphred

This is none of the UN's business and each individual country should be allowed to make it's own decision on such a matter.

I cast my vote against this.

Jon the Free
UN Delegate for AutoBlender

Definitely for this. Paradica already had something very similar to this in existance. (Though this definitely means my other, eviler, nation won't join the UN.)

Okay, what is up with this!?!?!

We voted to repeal "Leglise Euthanasia" and then this proposal that legalises euthanasia comes up? :headbang:

How about some consistency people. If you voted to repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" you should vote against this proposal also.

Against. Though Pluto Land has legalized euthanasia, we don't believe it should be forced on nations.

The people of Kethland are voting against this "Individual Self-determination" not becase we are for of against euthanasia but because this proposition oversteps the UN's jurisdiction. Proposals by the UN should deal with relations between countries not individuals of those countries. I do believe in Human Rights and peoples right to choose but ,as stated in past threads, this is not a dicision for the UN to make.

Hiho,

While the Dominion of Qphred supports the spirit of this resolution, they have voted against the resolution as specifically worded. The reason is that the use of the term "All persons of adult age" does not make any consideration for the mental state of the individual. It does not seem reasonable that a person who is not of sound mind but who is of adult age should be expected to have the ability to make this decision for themselves any more than a child would. Should this resolution fail and a new proposed resolution that instead states "All persons of adult age and of sound adult mind" (or similar) be put to vote, Qphred would support this resolution.

Thanks,
The Dominion of Qphred

I must support and agree with the Dominion of Qphred wholeheartedly on this matter. This resolution fails to take in to account the overwhelming number of attempted suicides, by people of unsound mind, which are later greatly regretted.

As such, the Theocracy of Vamachara Tantra cannot support the resolution as currently proposed, but would, if the proper wording were added to account for mental state.

Pañca Makāra,
The Religious Counsel of Vamachara Tantra.

I represent a group of nations who oppose human rights of all kinds, as the word 'human' implies... ugh, 'mortal'. Mortals, if you will forgive my strong language, are vastly inferior to the various cretures of infinite lifespans that inhabit our region, and should not be granted any rights at all lest they do something silly and inappropriate.

That said, death is a popular pastime in our region, as only through death can immortality be achieved. Plus, it's fun. Therefore as UN Representitive for The Lands of Storm and Darkness, I would vote in favour of this resolution, except I won't, because we do not recognise the UN's authority being, as it is, depressingly mortal in its nature.

Besides, when the apocalyspe comes and the prophesy is fulfilled, you will all be our minions and death will be compulsory.

You have been warned! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaa!

I knew something like this was inevitable when "Repeal Legalize Euthanasia" went through.

I don't like the idea of Euthanasia and I never will. Although we haven't changed the definition of Chronic/Terminal diseases since Legalize Euthanasia was repealed, we would still have to implement hoards of red tape in the process of creating living wills and other objects that we would prefer not to have to restrict.

The people of Jacobic are in support of free will of the nations and as such vote against this proposal. Nations should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. Although it is a humane resolution it is still a decision meant for the nations own government and its peoples.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
Delenn Satai

No person may make a right to die decision for another person.

So we are abolishing late-term abortions?

So we are abolishing late-term abortions?]
You left out the next sentence:
Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions
So, if you want to allow late-term abortions I think you can still allow them if you say that the parents are the guardians of the fetus pre-birth.

Perhaps it's time to restate what this resolution is really about.

A lot of honourable delegates seem to be under the impression that this resolution deals with Euthanasia or the "Right to Die" exclusively. In fact, this resolution sets out benchmarks for the ability of individuals to determine their medical health and treatment.

1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die.

Right to refuse treatment is not Euthanasia and indeed this clause states that the nation-state retains the right to forcible quarantine. The right of the individual to determine his/her health is fully protected here and indeed given clear legal status, yet the perogative of a government to exercise national health security measures is not infringed. I would call this progress.

2: All individuals may write a living will stating their wish to invoke right to die in case of future terminal illness or severe accident that may render them incapable of making such wishes known at the time. Living wills may be cancelled or retracted, only by the individual named on them, at any time if the person changes their mind.

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

These clauses deal with an individuals right to decide their future status according to present wishes. Though circumstances may change, the resolution phrases this right so that the individual, barring complete incapacity, is still legally entitled to change them. This is no way compells a set course, it merely offers guidance to resolve with relatively little discord and legal to-ing and fro-ing, the fate of an individual in a state where no real chance of recovery exists. Is it humane to keep someone on life-support for years, purely on a chance, on uncertainty? Is it desirable that a family should endure this silent agony, all whilst unsure of what their loved ones desired? This is a humane resolution and one that liberates patients, not encloses and confines them.

4: Any person who is incapable of making a right to die decision due to their medical condition, but has a living will, must have that will honoured if the conditions in the will match their medical situation. Nations retain the right, and are encouraged to require, that several independent medical assessments by qualified doctors are made of the patient medical state before right to die is carried out.

Thus a national perogative to have independent medical oversight of this procedure is enshrined, which should allay the fears of those who fear eugenics or rampant, unregulated euthanasia.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

Simultaneously, this resolution calls for 1). Legal safeguards and 2). Denies with the exception of extraordinary circumstances (and even then subject to judicial oversight) the possibility of the decision being determined by others. The risk of murder and euthanasia for convenience is so substantially reduced, as to be almost imperceptible.

6: No medical professionals may be forced to participate in any form of right to die if it goes against their personal or ethical beliefs. No medical professional may be hindered or prevented from participating in any form of right to die if they agree to be involved.

7: Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted.

And to conclude, 6 guarantees the conscience and independence of medical professionals, whilst 7 ensures the process is conducted humanely and without undue torture of the patient required in order for their desire for self-determination to be achieved.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Instead of milking money out of my healthcare system, I believe they have the right to determine their own fate.
Better yet...let's produce fertilizer out of their carcasses to make the Circle of Life complete.

Perhaps it's time to restate what this resolution is really about.

A lot of honourable delegates seem to be under the impression that this resolution deals with Euthanasia or the "Right to Die" exclusively. In fact, this resolution sets out benchmarks for the ability of individuals to determine their medical health and treatment.

*snip*
I understand that this is not solely about euthanasia, but it is the part of the resolution that I'm concerned about.

My nation already grants the patient the right to refuse treatment and the majority of the rights perscribed in this resolution, and if I'm not mistaken Resolution #153 "Patients Rights Act" dealt with most of them (most notable exception is the right of the government to force quarantine of patients who refuse treatment).

Parents/guardians can make a decision to kill child/children without their will to do so they are responsible for. Child/children should approve their decision to prevent such killing.

While Chalcidice does support and has indeed enacted laws to provide its citizens the option of death with dignity, we are concerned at how few safeguards are present in this resolution.

In particular, we are troubled at the notion that a living will alone could trigger physician-assisted suicide. In Chalcidice (as in Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, by the way), we require one written and two oral requests by the patient. The written request must be witnessed by at least two persons who, among other qualifications, cannot have an interest one or another in the patient's death (ie., family members, presiding physician are disqualified). The patient must acknowledge in the requests that the decision is "informed" meaning that she or he understands their diagnosis, prognosis, risks and alternatives. A non-treating physician must verify the patient's diagnosis, his or her decisionmaking capacity, and the patient's voluntariness with the decision.

In short, we believe a living will alone (perhaps written years beforehand under very different life circumstances) is not sufficient.

We wish we could support this resolution but must vote "No".

Living wills are often acted upon when a person is in a position where they are utterly incapable of communicating with the doctors. How do you expect such wishes to be acted upon if they cannot speak - say they do not wish to be in a coma for several years and so after year 5, their living will is read and they see this so they let her die.

The Colony of Arboreal Rodent's has for years suffered the loss of many of it's citizens by suicide.
You have no doubt heard the reports of our brothers and sisters running into the path of an oncoming vehicle or climbing head first into a vent pipe.
Some say it's a mental illness while others say it was a choice.
While we may never resolve the issue of it's cause we also know that we cant stop it. If you want to die you will find a way.
It's better that death comes with more dignity than being dragged away by a Fox and less pain than being scooped up by a Hawk.
While the Colony supports the concept of the proposal and recognizes the U.N.'s role in promoting Human Rights, we have concerns over the wording of the proposal as it now stands.

Adolphus T. Hangs upside-down on tree trunks. ( Holder of the Golden Nut with Oak Leaves)
Special Ambassador by appointment of The Great Gatherer of the Colony.

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

Our nation believes that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it. If folks want to burn their old socks, kill their dog, destroy their liquor cabinet, or end their life, we consider them free to do so and respect their choice. We do not give this right to terminally-ill persons exclusively. This is our nations policy, and we are well aware that many other nations would find this extremity of liberty reprehensible. As such, we would not attempt to impose this policy on other nations. And we do not appreciate the attempt to impose such a restrictive policy on HotRodian citizens by way of United Nations legislation. Accordingly, our nation has voted AGAINST the resolution "Individual Self-Determination".

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

If you mean that you will be against any mandating proposal, as Powerhungry Chipmunks did, then I truly admire you, and even if this is very far from Love and esterel politics, I have to recognize that your respect of national sovereignty impress me.

I said "any" because not only goods, services and money cross borders and are "international", but also people and pollution. Environment in your nation is dependant from environment in your neighbours. Many people in your nation, as in almost every nation (even in North Korea and Bhutan) have relatives and friends from another nation, people sometimes even marry citizen of another nation.

While the goverment of Lorien7 supports this proposal, we have no choice but to vote agianst it. Here are the reasons:
1) This is an issue we believe must be decided by individual nations.
2) The idea of a child's fate being decided by his/her gaurdians without his/her approval is disturbing. We veiw this practice as unethical and will not tolerate it.
Please tell us if we have had a gross misunderstanding. But until we are convinced, Lorien7 will vote no.

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

Our nation believes that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it. If folks want to burn their old socks, kill their dog, destroy their liquor cabinet, or end their life, we consider them free to do so and respect their choice. We do not give this right to terminally-ill persons exclusively. This is our nations policy, and we are well aware that many other nations would find this extremity of liberty reprehensible. As such, we would not attempt to impose this policy on other nations. And we do not appreciate the attempt to impose such a restrictive policy on HotRodian citizens by way of United Nations legislation. Accordingly, our nation has voted AGAINST the resolution "Individual Self-Determination".

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Let me see if I have this straight.... Your nation "believes that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it," yet you oppose a resolution that would guarantee that right to all. Can I assume, then, that you would oppose any resolution that provided protection for any human rights?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Just because you recognize certain rights within your own nation, it doesn't make it an international issue. All the red hurts my eyes.

Just because you recognize certain rights within your own nation, it doesn't make it an international issue. All the red hurts my eyes.

I agree with you, and that apply for issues about people exactly as that applies for issues about goods, services and money. ;) Absolutly No differences.

This one had better not make it, it goes WAY beyond the jurisdiction of the UN.. Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions? We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination.. though I guess that's why you have the option to not be in the UN, but then you can't participate in half the stuff. Totally not cool.
These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"

Clearly a lot of work went into writing this resolution, but I cannot vote for this resolution because the matter is not a United Nation's matter. The imagination of a few well meaning doctors should not influence the moral or ethical decisions of millions of people. I think this resolution is a symptom of many of the problems that pervade the United Nations. Current laws in the Principality of Ronclone already address this issue. This resolution seems like an attempt to re-write the medical code of our country.

This one had better not make it, it goes WAY beyond the jurisdiction of the UN.. Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions? We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination.. though I guess that's why you have the option to not be in the UN, but then you can't participate in half the stuff. Totally not cool.
These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"

Nicely said. This goes agaist my morals and laws of my nation so i can not surpport this.*votes agaist*

The Free Land of Ngapura offers its tentative support to this resolution. It is well written and does not grossly overstep the bounds of UN power. It grants increased individual sovereignty at the cost of a little national sovereignty. That is a trade we are willing to make. If a people does not approve of this practice it is unlikely they will be utilizing it and thus will not be overly affected, on the other hand, the good it will do for those that will use it is undeniable.


FOR

Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions? We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination.. though I guess that's why you have the option to not be in the UN, but then you can't participate in half the stuff. Totally not cool.
These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"
As much as some of us (like myself) may want to do that, we can't.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA (who is filling in for Bob while he attends Lady Faren's funeral)

This one had better not make it, it goes WAY beyond the jurisdiction of the UN.. Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions? We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination.. though I guess that's why you have the option to not be in the UN, but then you can't participate in half the stuff. Totally not cool.
These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"
Wow, I think about 90% of the UN's resolutions are addressing daily issues.

This one had better not make it, it goes WAY beyond the jurisdiction of the UN.. Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions? We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination.. though I guess that's why you have the option to not be in the UN, but then you can't participate in half the stuff. Totally not cool.
These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"

Well the concept of limiting the U.N.'s mandate is legal technically but not on such vague terms as the ones you define. Equally there's no such thing as "going beyond the jurisdiction of the U.N.", because technically there is no limit to the U.N.'s scope unless you can clearly design a specific exemption. So you'd have to ban the U.N. from legislating on Individual Sovereignty in order for that to work.

Now as a devoted Int Fed, I don't believe the U.N. should be subject to any limits, given it's democratic representation of the interests of its members and the fact that it can be a powerful force for international progress, prosperity and security. Therefore I stand opposed to your position sir.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

having read this proposal it looks like a euthanasia bill, it sounds like one and we have it in Kirisubo already.

With the previous repeal this made euthanasia a decison for each individual nation, UN or not.

I'm inclined to vote against so each nation represented here can continue to make up their own minds.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador

This is a total and flagrant power grab by the UN and if it passes I shall urge all those nations which oppose this resolution wage relentless war against its sponsor. For our part, we shall declare war on the sponsir if this passes.

Bill C
Upadaria

This is a total and flagrant power grab by the UN and if it passes I shall urge all those nations which oppose this resolution wage relentless war against its sponsor. For our part, we shall declare war on the sponsir if this passes.

Bill C
Upadaria

Have fun fighting a war on your own then, if it passes. I don't RP much, and will never set foot in II.

The UN isn't grabbing anything. If this passes, the power will be in the hands of the individual, where it belongs. All the UN will do is protect their right to choose, nothing more.

Just because you recognize certain rights within your own nation, it doesn't make it an international issue. All the red hurts my eyes.

Just because you use a different definition of International issue doesn't mean it isn't an International issue. It just isn't one to you. Personally, I think many human rights is certainly an international issue. Right to walk a dog - perhaps not. Determining off leash areas - perhaps not. Getting to decide one's fate, absolutely. Getting to decide one's course in life? Absolutely.

NEXT

-----------------

Now, this next poster has brought me great mirth for the day. He actually puts enough OOC into it that I can more than happily shread his arguments as being fucking stupid.

This one had better not make it, it goes WAY beyond the jurisdiction of the UN..

Where is the jurisdiction of the UN defined? Could you possibly point to it? Or is it just some concept that you have in your mind of what the UN should and should not legislate on?

Can't we vote that nobody can submit UN proposals that correspond to individual nations' decisions?

Try reading the proposal rules at some point. In there exists this little clause that I shall read to you:

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation

So.....no

Now that that lesson is over, let's continue

We get these things for a reason, the whole point of nationstates is self-determination..

No, the whole point of Nationstates is to simulate a nation and to have a nice political game. Self-determination is only one of the many aspects of NationStates. If you want Self-determination, you really should look at the resign button a bit more often. When Max says you can't ignore resolutions and when the mods say the UN was meant to interfere, you can't really argue that UN members have self-determination left. Bogus argument.



Exactly. So you have a choice to consider - do you wish to be able to determine your fate, be God of your own little realm and your 1024X768 castle of NS playing glory, or do you want to play with the big boys and sometimes have to follow how they play the game, so long as they play within the rules.

[QUOTE]Totally not cool.

I didn't realize a political game would classify as cool on most people's lists to begin with.

These UN issues should have a scope well above and beyond the little ones we get, instead of just saying "I always pick this option, and now all of you will too!"

Like what? What do you think we should look at instead?

If it makes you feel better, I've got one of, if not, the highest post totals in favor of this proposal since it first was made public and I haven't looked at issues in a year. This isn't about making you conform with my issues. This is about looking beyond my 1024X768 screen and saying "let's actually play a political game where I start duking it out with fellow politicians about issues that matter to me or them or whatever"

You don't want to play that game? Fine. You can go back to your 1024X768 little world and enjoy yourself and ignore the UN. If you're here because you want to be an invader/defender, go for it and ignore the UN. If you want to be the sole person that decides the fate of your nation, fine, leave the UN. If you want to actually play a game with us, then start debating the issue based upon what you believe rather than bitching about how you can't play the game your way. This is a multiplayer game, not your playpen. Get over yourself.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY WITCHCLIFF
If this passes, the power will be in the hands of the individual, where it belongs. All the UN will do is protect their right to choose, nothing more.

Most Esteemeed Delegate it is not for the UN to decide what other governments must decide for their peoples. The right to choose is not what all governments allow for their peoples. And we must respect their choice as well.

Prime Minister of Jacobic

Most Esteemeed Delegate it is not for the UN to decide what other governments must decide for their peoples. The right to choose is not what all governments allow for their peoples. And we must respect their choice as well.

Prime Minister of Jacobic

That is the crux of the clash between human rights and what a government wants. Yes, this resolution does bypass the government and put the decision in the hands of the people, because the individual knows what they want, what their situation is, what is best for them and their family much better than the government, or the UN for that matter, ever could. This sort of personal and private decison can only be made by the person it affects.

Most Esteemeed Delegate it is not for the UN to decide what other governments must decide for their peoples. The right to choose is not what all governments allow for their peoples. And we must respect their choice as well.

Prime Minister of Jacobic

And how do you justify the governments making life decisions for their people? How do you justify the governments forcing a belief into people of what IT believes their value is to the world? How could a government truly believe it honestly knows the value of every person?

And how do you justify the governments making life decisions for their people? How do you justify the governments forcing a belief into people of what IT believes their value is to the world? How could a government truly believe it honestly knows the value of every person?Truly, does the high-handedness ever tire you out?

6: No medical professionals may be forced to participate in any form of right to die if it goes against their personal or ethical beliefs. No medical professional may be hindered or prevented from participating in any form of right to die if they agree to be involved.Does anyone mind if I make a relevant query to the proposal at hand? Does this law even require us to issue medical licenses to doctors who would perform euthanasia?

Well, not us, since we're not party to UN conventions ...

Does anyone mind if I make a relevant query to the proposal at hand? Does this law even require us to issue medical licenses to doctors who would perform euthanasia?

Well, not us, since we're not party to UN conventions ...

I guess you can, if by some means you can work out who will and won't ever want to paticpate in it. Until they are licensed medical professionals that clause doesn't protect them. Mind you, that clause does also cover nurses, anthethatists or any other medical professionals, not just doctors.

I didn't write this to micromanage the subject, and close every possible loophole. It is a framework, and nations can fill in the gaps anyway they please. If that is loosening or tightening the criteria for a right to die request, fine, that is up to the nation concerned.

Truly, does the high-handedness ever tire you out?

Does bitching about NatSov ever tire you out?

And how do you justify the governments making life decisions for their people? How do you justify the governments forcing a belief into people of what IT believes their value is to the world? How could a government truly believe it honestly knows the value of every person?


Well said. As a newcomer to these forums, Imperfectia will vote for this resolution

Well said. As a newcomer to these forums, Imperfectia will vote for this resolution

Finally decided to stop lurking? :eek:

Finally decided to stop lurking? :eek:

yeah, figured it was about time :rolleyes:

Plus, I feel that this is a good resolution to jump in on and support.

Aye, indeed. What Forgottenlord said there reminded me of a Mark Twain quote. "The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong... Its function is to obey orders, not originate them."

Obviously there are countries that will take exception to this. There are also countries that can kiss my butt. The question then is, are the numbers the same?

Aye, indeed. What Forgottenlord said there reminded me of a Mark Twain quote. "The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong... Its function is to obey orders, not originate them."
Ya got that right, yo!

Horace Indigo
Ambassador-at-Large, yo!

Just because you recognize certain rights within your own nation, it doesn't make it an international issue. All the red hurts my eyes.

So human rights aren't an international issue?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Does anyone mind if I make a relevant query to the proposal at hand? Does this law even require us to issue medical licenses to doctors who would perform euthanasia?

Well, not us, since we're not party to UN conventions ...

Why should it? It's a resolution (not a proposal) about euthanasia, not medical licensing.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

I completely agree that each individual deserves the right to decide for himself whether or not to leave or die, particularly in terminal cases.

HOWEVER, is it not a wee bit hypocritical to say that a single national government should not be able to rule one way or the other on this issue, but a large group of many representatives of these same governments should?

You can argue that this resolution simply takes the power out of governments' hands completely, allowing individuals to decide. It does, BUT this is still a bias position to support. Some individuals believe that suicide (call it "letting yourself die" if you want, it's still basically suicide), even to end horrible suffering, is simply wrong, and not only would they not do it themselves, but also they do not believe others should be ALLOWED to do it. Though I disagree with this opinion, it is no less legitimate than arguing for individual rights.

Now back to sovereignty. Having noted the inevitable bias of any government ruling, why would it be "right" or "just" to have that ruling come from the most distant governing body possible, affecting all member nations and citizens thereof? Assuming that most national governments are run generally by the people (this assumption may not be correct, but regardless, national governments are surely far more "by the people" than the UN could ever be), leaving the decision up to individual nations would in turn leave the decision up to more individual people. Keep in mind that the "decision" in question is not simply whether to live or die, but whether to allow the choice at all. Additionally, this decision can easily become religious, and the UN ruling one way or the other would infringe on people's freedom of religion.

So, though I agree with the principles on which the resolution was founded, it should not be for the UN to decide, for the reasons stated above.

And by "leave" i mean "live"

:)

I completely agree that each individual deserves the right to decide for himself whether or not to leave or die, particularly in terminal cases.

Excellent

HOWEVER, is it not a wee bit hypocritical to say that a single national government should not be able to rule one way or the other on this issue, but a large group of many representatives of these same governments should?

You can argue that this resolution simply takes the power out of governments' hands completely, allowing individuals to decide. It does, BUT this is still a bias position to support. Some individuals believe that suicide (call it "letting yourself die" if you want, it's still basically suicide), even to end horrible suffering, is simply wrong, and not only would they not do it themselves, but also they do not believe others should be ALLOWED to do it. Though I disagree with this opinion, it is no less legitimate than arguing for individual rights.

Y'know, there are sometimes when the world's greatest evil acts just must be made.

:headbang:

So let those people decide for themselves that they see value in THEIR OWN LIFE (do I need to repeat that? THEIR OWN LIFE) and decide to continue to use that value. Let them decide what they want to do with their own bodies. Guess what, this resolution doesn't stop them from doing.

What does it stop them from doing - it stops them from telling people WHO ARE NOT THEM, who do not have their lives, who do not have their beliefs what [B]the value of THEIR OWN LIFE IS[/I]. I don't give a shit if someone has the opinion that all life is sacred and it is immoral to commit suicide. Why should I be expected to live to their morals on the matter? I'm not hurting anyone but myself if I commit suicide. So why should I be forced to follow the choices they would make about their lives?

This resolution doesn't stop them from not commiting suicide.
It allows me to decide whether I want to commit suicide.

That's not bias. Bias would be if we told you "tough, you're wasting our money, time to die." We aren't telling you that.

So, now that we've gotten that figured out, I repeat:

And how do you justify the governments making life decisions for their people? How do you justify the governments forcing a belief into people of what IT believes their value is to the world? How could a government truly believe it honestly knows the value of every person?

NEXT

*snip a bunch of crap about UN interference and sovereignty that have yet to answer my questions because it all stems from a false argument*

Excellent



Y'know, there are sometimes when the world's greatest evil acts just must be made.

:headbang:

So let those people decide for themselves that they see value in THEIR OWN LIFE (do I need to repeat that? THEIR OWN LIFE) and decide to continue to use that value. Let them decide what they want to do with their own bodies. Guess what, this resolution doesn't stop them from doing.

What does it stop them from doing - it stops them from telling people WHO ARE NOT THEM, who do not have their lives, who do not have their beliefs what [B]the value of THEIR OWN LIFE IS[/I]. I don't give a shit if someone has the opinion that all life is sacred and it is immoral to commit suicide. Why should I be expected to live to their morals on the matter? I'm not hurting anyone but myself if I commit suicide. So why should I be forced to follow the choices they would make about their lives?

This resolution doesn't stop them from not commiting suicide.
It allows me to decide whether I want to commit suicide.

That's not bias. Bias would be if we told you "tough, you're wasting our money, time to die." We aren't telling you that.

So, now that we've gotten that figured out, I repeat:



NEXT


Eeeee, watch it with the "suicide" thing. Dance around the word all you want with me, but it's not a word to toy around with when it's still early in the voting.


But yeah, I'm going to reiterate. This Resolution is like Sovereignty Squared. Instead of giving the choice just to UN member nations, it goes further and gives it to the individuals. Sure, your government and a majority of your people may feel that euthanasia is no good, that's fine. Then they don't have to have it done to them!!! To the people for whom it would matter should go the choice. Namely the guy with the modern equivalent of an iron lung and four needles in his arm pumping him full of pain killers, muscle relaxants, mind-numbers and such with the "Please just let me die" look in his eye, the DNR form filled out and attached to his file, and the family eating the rats in the basement so they can pay for the treatments that do not cure, but perpetuate his life.

I swears, if I'm ever in a position like that and some yuppie religious freak who I have never seen in my life comes around telling people NOT to euthanize me, I'll cough on them and give them whatever I've got. It's like someone trying to buy a sandwich at a sandwich shop and someone else is sitting there going, "NO! DO NOT SELL HIM THAT SANDWICH, BY GOD!"

Honestly, there are just some issues that really shouldn't be this difficult. Live and let live. It ain't gonna affect you if some Joe Schmo pulls the plug to end his suffering. Unless for some reason you're reaaaally sensitive, in which case, you shouldn't be legislating in the first place.

Another concern regarding this resolution: paragraph 5 allows a parent or guardian to make a right to die decision on behalf of a child. It then strongly encourages but does not require nations to make parents go through some sort of legal process. Same goes for the "mentally incapable". This language is just too weak! Why shouldn't nations be *required* to provide legal protections for children in this position? Can you not imagine cultures in which, for example, parents are encouraged to preferentially find young girls more dispensable than boys?

How is the term "mentally incapable" determined? I can imagine some nations deeming all people who suffer from mental illness (depression, OCD, etc.) as "mentally incapable" (China, for example, takes this position).

In short, Chalcidice finds this language too vague and does not appropriately protect the rights of all citizens.

Another concern regarding this resolution: paragraph 5 allows a parent or guardian to make a right to die decision on behalf of a child. It then strongly encourages but does not require nations to make parents go through some sort of legal process. Same goes for the "mentally incapable". This language is just too weak! Why shouldn't nations be *required* to provide legal protections for children in this position? Can you not imagine cultures in which, for example, parents are encouraged to preferentially find young girls more dispensable than boys?

How is the term "mentally incapable" determined? I can imagine some nations deeming all people who suffer from mental illness (depression, OCD, etc.) as "mentally incapable" (China, for example, takes this position).

In short, Chalcidice finds this language too vague and does not appropriately protect the rights of all citizens.

Mk. Then do it yourself. UN Resolutions are purposefully weaker to allow for some national personalization. The resolution doesn't say that you can't tighten it up a bit.

Let me see if I have this straight.... Your nation "believes that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it," yet you oppose a resolution that would guarantee that right to all. Can I assume, then, that you would oppose any resolution that provided protection for any human rights?

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Ambassador Thwerdock,

Our nation, in addition to believing that it is the right of all individuals to determine whether or not to continue their life because, like all things that they possess, they have the right to exercise full control over it...our nation also believes that it is neither in the proper scope of authority of the United Nations or within the power of the United Nations to guarantee rights to individuals. As such, we oppose all attempts by this body to guarantee rights to individuals (be they human or not) as inappropriate and wasteful. However, we believe that it is the duty of this body to promote the appropriate treatment of individuals while respecting the internal decisions and policies of member nations. Sadly, the resolution at vote does not respect the internal decisions and policies of member nations, including our nation's own much less restrictive approach.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Another concern regarding this resolution: paragraph 5 allows a parent or guardian to make a right to die decision on behalf of a child. It then strongly encourages but does not require nations to make parents go through some sort of legal process. Same goes for the "mentally incapable". This language is just too weak! Why shouldn't nations be *required* to provide legal protections for children in this position? Can you not imagine cultures in which, for example, parents are encouraged to preferentially find young girls more dispensable than boys?

How is the term "mentally incapable" determined? I can imagine some nations deeming all people who suffer from mental illness (depression, OCD, etc.) as "mentally incapable" (China, for example, takes this position).

In short, Chalcidice finds this language too vague and does not appropriately protect the rights of all citizens.


Children and the disabled have plenty of protections under other resolutions. I didn't need to go to town with that, so didn't. You example of the boys and girls would fall under several of them with anti-discrimination clauses.

What you consider mentally incapable is up to your nation. In mine it means those who have a pre-existing mental condition that prevented them from ever being in the postion to write a living will. Those born with autism or downs syndrome for example.

If you mean that you will be against any mandating proposal, as Powerhungry Chipmunks did, then I truly admire you, and even if this is very far from Love and esterel politics, I have to recognize that your respect of national sovereignty impress me.

I said "any" because not only goods, services and money cross borders and are "international", but also people and pollution.

Does every good cross borders? Does every service cross borders? Every unit of currency? Does every person cross borders? Does every smog particle?

No, they don't. So how does international law, even in theory, apply to those goods that are purely domestic? Services? Money? People? Pollution?

Environment in your nation is dependant from environment in your neighbours. Many people in your nation, as in almost every nation (even in North Korea and Bhutan) have relatives and friends from another nation, people sometimes even marry citizen of another nation.

I think you're rather overstating things with the word "dependant". One nation's set of ecological systems impacts those of another nation in many cases, sometimes dramatically, sometimes marginally.

To turn the tables and ask you to deal with the consistency of your own position, let's look at what you're suggesting here.

A man crosses the border of the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia into the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders. He meets a person interested in selling an automobile he has possession of, giving his current automobile to the other person as part of the payment. The man purchases the car and drives it back to HotRodia. On the way, the exhaust from the vehicle, now the property of a HotRodian citizen operating it within the borders of Texan Hotrodders, pollutes the air of Texan Hotrodders.

To take the scenario further to account for friends and relatives in other nations and the amazing interconnectedness of the world, let's say that the increased pollution affects the overall pollution levels of the world, even that of Ecopoeia and Biotopia, to a factor resembling 0.000000000000000000000001 parts per million (probably much too large a number and too few zeros given the size and constitution of NationStates as well as the relatively negligible contribution of the one automobile in question).

In this scenario, we have money, a person, a good, and pollution crossing a border (I was really tempted to work a service in there too), as well as consequences for the wider international community.

Do you see it as appropriate, necessary, and practical to have international law that addresses all the factors in that situation? Even three of the factors? Two? One?

Or would you rather that the individuals in the situation addressed these issues themselves? If a dispute arose between the people in the scenario, would you want to write a UN resolution that detailed how they should decide the matter, or would you think it made more sense for national legal authorities to adjudicate?

I have only one thing to contribute in this thread: FOR

On a side note, it is interesting that in its first day this thread has more posts than all of UN Copyright Convention did.

I have only one thing to contribute in this thread: FOR

On a side note, it is interesting that in its first day this thread has more posts than all of UN Copyright Convention did.

Interesting, but certainly not surprising.

Interesting, but certainly not surprising.
Yeah, I'm not really surprised either. Copyright just isn't a subject that most people want to sink their teeth into.

Typical UN Officer wants to impose HIS idea of right and wrong in his elitist bias.

Upadaria would rather wage war than submit to this. ANY nation that thinks it can or should decide this issue for the people of Upadaria is a fascist enemy. DEATH TO YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BC
Upadaria

Most Esteemeed Delegate it is not for the UN to decide what other governments must decide for their peoples. The right to choose is not what all governments allow for their peoples. And we must respect their choice as well.

Prime Minister of Jacobic
Actually it is. That all it is for, what other purpose could it have?
The only thing the NSUN isn't allowed to do is change the working of the game and ban government types.

Typical UN Officer wants to impose HIS idea of right and wrong in his elitist bias.

Upadaria would rather wage war than submit to this. ANY nation that thinks it can or should decide this issue for the people of Upadaria is a fascist enemy. DEATH TO YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BC
Upadaria

Never talk again. You fail at comprehension.

Besides that, the author is not a he.

Edit:
Nor is she typical (or imposing any beliefs at all, but that's another matter). In fact, unfortunately, you seem more typical. People who make some enthusiastic statement for or against a Resolution who seem to have not read a Resolution. Or, if they did, they missed the point, and instead of making sure that they got it right by participating in a civil debate to discuss the pros, cons, and questions about a Resolution, make invective-laden statements about enemies, death, fascists, biases, and the remarkably inconsistent notion that other people are elitist whilst they themselves are speaking of waging war over a Resolution (instead of, oh, leaving the UN?) and making patriotic statements about their country's rights.

Way to go tiger. You've made a shining impression for all the other new members.